| 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 451 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 446 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Facebook, Google, Yandex
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1972 Conference - That the Church May Endure |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:52 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
 |
THAT THE CHURCH MAY ENDURE
Rennes, France
November 1972
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I should rather say My dear Brethren, since I rejoice to see several cassocks among the audience. I have not the eloquence of a Bossuet, I have not the knowledge of a St. Thomas, so you must forgive me. I am only a missionary, but if my words lack eloquence, I hope the conviction of my faith will be sufficiently apparent to you and that you will understand that I did not come here to make an eloquent address; above all I come here with joy, in answer to the request made of me, so that your and my faith in the Holy Catholic Church may grow, that our faith in our Lord may persevere, and that when we leave this meeting we may be more determined than ever to maintain that faith, the most precious gift that we have in our souls. For I it was indeed our priests who, one day, asked our godfathers and godmothers when they carried us to the baptismal font: “What does faith give you?” “Eternal Life.” And if there is one thing we need, one thing for which we hope, one thing we await, it is indeed eternal life. Hence we are not here concerned with words of little importance; this is not a lecture dealing with something transitory.
The question is that of life eternal, of the salvation of our souls. It concerns the salvation of the souls of those about us and entrusted to us, the souls of your children. That is why I have answered your call. I should not have come had the question been of small importance. I have come because it concerns serious and important matters, essential to our faith and the life of our souls.
It is then for these grave and important motives that I am among you. For what is the real danger in the situation in which the Church is engaged today, in the battle which she is fighting and in which she is deeply implicated and wounded? What is it all about? It is our faith. And it seems to me that it is on that plane that all that is happening now must be considered. Simply to consider the liturgy, the difficulties of the priesthood, the attacks on the Christian family, including that of the Catholic school, is not enough. It is a question of considering all these spheres in which the Church today finds herself in some way wounded in the matter of our faith. Moreover, I believe it may be rightly stated that throughout the history of the Church it has always been through lack of faith that heresies and schisms have been born; that whole families have been cut off from the Church by forsaking the faith. Once again it is under this aspect that today’s crisis must be considered if it is to be rightly understood.
I hope my words will not scandalize you. I hope you will not think my attitude too hard and fast, and the words I shall speak too lacking in the finer shades! One thing I would say, before touching the heart of the matter, is that I have no intention of criticizing individuals. If you prefer, I will adopt the position taken by the Holy Office, the position it has always taken when bound in duty to consider the condemnation of books and to put them on the Index.
The Holy Office did not consider persons, only their works. It has been criticized for condemning books supposedly without hearing persons. To be accurate, however, it was not persons whom it condemned. It condemned on the evidence-the works. It said: “This book contains passages which are not in conformity with the traditional teaching of the Church.” One point, that is all! The author is of little importance; the poison is there. The Church detected it; she condemned. It was her duty and that is what the Church has already done. Alas! she does it less today. Hence I shall consider the events through which we are living, the things we are seeing and hearing, the things put into our hands, in that same way, without concerning myself with persons. You will tell me that I must go further back to the people who wrote these things or who gave them to us. I do not know and I do not want to know, because I am incapable of knowing the responsibility, still less the degree of guilt of those who may have written or given us a particular document. One thing is certain, however. If today we are experiencing a tragic and dramatic situation in the Church, there are causes which we must study and look into. We cannot close our eyes to a situation as grave as that through which we are living today.
If you wish, then, I will give you a brief description of such themes and phenomena as seem of major importance in this crisis, the phenomena which seem to us most serious. We will then seek their causes so that we may be forewarned and know what we must do. We shall then end with practical conclusions-what is to be done in the face of this crisis which constitutes an attack on the Church’s every sphere?
We might concentrate mainly on the present crisis of the Church regarding her teaching and magisterium. One of the first domains to come under serious attack is university teaching, since if there is one thing important to the Church, it is Catholic universities. The Church has always considered the university chairs of Theology, Canon Law, Liturgy, and Ecclesiastical Law as the organs of its authentic magisterium or at least preaching. It is now an established fact that in all, or nearly all, Catholic universities, at least those not behind the Iron Curtain, the orthodox Catholic Faith is no longer taught in its entirety. So far as I am aware, whether in free Europe, in the United States, or in South America, there is not a single Catholic university that teaches the Catholic Faith in its entirety. There are always some professors who, under the guise of theological research, allow themselves to express opinions contrary to our faith, not merely in a few secondary aspects, but against its very principles.
Here beneath my eyes, I have the text of a lecture on the Eucharist given by the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Strasbourg: “Contemporary Thought and the Expression of Eucharistic Faith.” This lecture, from the first line to the last, is heretical. There is no longer any question of the Real Presence of our Lord. The Real Presence, for the one who is Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Strasbourg, is comparable to the presence of a composer of a piece of music, who shows himself in his piece when it is played. It is thus that our Lord would be held present in the Holy Eucharist. Incredible!Unimaginable! And he speaks of what the celebration of the Eucharist will be in a few years. For him, the Novus Ordo is no longer in question; it is already outdated. The world evolves so swiftly that such things are soon relegated to times past and consequently, we must look forward to a Eucharist emanating from the group itself. In what will it consist? The Dean himself is not sure. But by meeting together, groups will create the Eucharist,will create the sense of this communion with Christ, who will, as they say, be present in the midst of them, but in no way present under the species of bread and wine. He smiles at that Eucharist which is called an “efficacious sign,” which is the definition of the Sacrament, of all sacraments. He says: “That is utterly ridiculous; such terms cannot be used today. In our day they are meaningless.” What this Dean says is grave indeed. As a result, the young students who hear these things from their professor, from the very Dean of the Faculty, young seminarians still in residence, are gradually steeped in error, marked by it; they receive a training which is no longer Catholic.
It is the same with those who are now at Fribourg and who hear from the famous Dominican, Professor Pfuertner, that premarital relations are both natural and desirable. Such was the scandal created throughout Switzerland that the laity themselves took the matter up. Imagine fathers of families learning that the Faculty professor, the professor of Ethics, was teaching such things! It was flabbergasting. So violent and so vehement was the reaction among Catholic and Christian parents that the bishops were made aware of the existence of a great danger. Now, despite the comments made to him, despite the coming of the Superior General of the Dominicans to Fribourg, despite the bishop’s journey to Rome to consider the measures to be taken in the matter of the professor, this Dominican Father is still attached to the University of Fribourg, where he continues his teaching. He has simply agreed to take three months’ leave, and he proposes to return to his Chair for the second term of the year, saying that those three months will give him the opportunity for discussion with the bishops. These are minor examples, but they show that even in such universities as Fribourg, hitherto regarded as a sound and traditional university, the doctrine of the Church will not be taught from now on.
It is the same with liturgy. Father Baumgartner, also a Dominican, has taught those of my own seminarians at Fribourg. They themselves have told me the way to compose new Canons. He said to them: “It is not very difficult to make new Canons; here are a few principles you can easily adopt on becoming priests.” Yet, so far as I know, he has never been the object of any comment or criticism. Examples could be multiplied. And when one reflects that even in the universities of Rome, including the Gregorian, there are freely put forward, in the guise of theological research, utterly incredible theories on the relations of Church and State, on divorce, etc! Assuredly, the very fact of having achieved a transformation of the Holy Office-always considered by the Church as the Tribunal of the Faith-is significant and of great consequence. Anyone soever, layman, priest, and more especially bishop, might submit to the Holy Office a book, a review, an article and ask for the ruling of the Church on its conformity to Catholic doctrine. A month or six weeks later, the Holy Office would answer, “This is right, this is wrong; a distinction should be drawn here; part is true, part false.” In short, it was thoroughly examined and judgment passed. It was the Tribunal of Faith. The Holy Office has now defined itself for the future as the “Office for Theological Research.” The difference is clear to see.
I remember asking Cardinal Browne, the former Superior General of the Dominicans: “Eminence, do you regard this change in the Holy Office as radical change or merely as superficial and accidental?”
“Oh no!” he replied. “The change is essential.”
The Holy Office, then, is no longer the Holy Office of the past. That is why we must not be surprised if there are no more condemnations, if the Tribunal for the Faith of the Church no longer acts, or carries out its functions where theologians and all who write on the Faith of the Church are concerned. We must not be surprised if errors grow everywhere widespread and that theologians, theologians in name only, find themselves free to publish errors and profess them publicly without fear of intervention. Thus the poison of heresy ends by spreading through the whole Church. The magisterium of the Church is subjected to a grave crisis.
It is a teaching which appears in our catechisms also-you certainly know something about that! You could see for yourselves the catechisms put into your children’s hands and found in Catholic schools today. I have here some copies of a particularly “with it” catechism. They are Canadian catechisms. All these catechisms, whether French, Canadian, German, or Italian, what have you, derive more or less from the mother-catechism, if we may call it so, of Holland. Now, you are well aware that the Dutch Catechism has been condemned, if not by the Holy Father directly, at least by the commission named by him and made up of cardinals. Ten points dealing with ten fundamental points of the doctrine of the Church have been condemned or their authors have been asked at least to restate them and thus change the text of the work in question; they were asked to issue a new edition of the catechism, changing the text-well, the text never has been changed. Some editions, in which these ten points were added at the end of the book, have been published, but the text has never been changed. Finally, the addition of the points disappeared. They are no longer to be found in recent editions. These same catechisms are now the source of all catechisms throughout the world.
Look at this one, for instance, where you can see “Sexuality and Daily Life.” I regret that I cannot pass it round. You would yourselves see the horrors it contains, including even illustrations aimed at giving children an obsession. I assure you it is an abomination. There is nothing but that in the book and always in large headlines. Sexuality! Open the book at any page, you will find it everywhere-sexuality lived in the faith, sexual promotion. The illustrations themselves are absolutely revolting-sexual promotion, sexual union, there is nothing else. The child who has these pictures to look at and these texts to attract his interest will end by believing that there is nothing else in life and that it is a reality that cannot be ignored. In a thousand forms sexuality invades the inner and outer universe of every man and woman as if nothing else existed. It is to give the child the desire and the obsession of sex!
It is this publication which is put into the hands of children in Canada. Christian parents, many Christian parents have protested, but, alas! there is nothing to be done. Why? It is enough to look at the last page. It shows that these catechisms have the approval of the Committee on the Catechism. “Nihil obstat, Gerard-Marie Coderre, President of the Episcopal Commission for Religious Education in Quebec.” Here is another, still on the same subject: The Power of Meetings. You may imagine what that can mean-the power of meetings. Here is a third catechism: Direction on the Journey: Reflections on Breaking Away. Yet again you can see immediately what this may mean. The child is invited to break with everything-with his parents, with tradition, with the bonds of society in order to rediscover his personality, in order that he may free himself of the complexes bred in him by society or the family. It is the break-away! And it is claimed that through experience of these breaks, Christ reveals to us what it means to be the Son of God. It is thus our Lord who has experienced such severances and who desires them.
When this is compared with what I was saying to you recently about the faith, we see, if we go into this domain, that it is the exact contrary of what we should be doing-we should seek bonds, above all with God. We should be the slaves of God, we should be the servants of God; and so, instead of forever speaking of severance, we should speak of ties, of those which make up our life-the love of God. What is the love of God if not a link with God, obedience to God and to His commandments? The bond with parents, love for our parents, these are the bonds of life, not of death. And these are presented to the child as ties which constrain and hem him in, bonds which diminish his personality and of which he must rid himself. There, then, is a catechism approved by Bishop Coderre and the Canadian Episcopate.
Something, then, is going on in the Church and it is something abnormal. These are facts. I do not judge Bishop Coderre, I do not judge the Canadian Episcopate. But the catechisms are there, they have been put into the hands of children. The lecture was given by the Dean of the Faculty of Theology in Strasbourg. The facts are beyond dispute. I heard of them by chance, but, faced with such happenings, actual events, which provide evidence that something is going wrong, we have no right to shut our eyes and say, That has been given us, that is from above, so let us close our eyes, accept, and obey. No, and yet again no!
St. Thomas himself asks, in the questions he poses on fraternal correction, whether fraternal correction can exist with regard to superiors. That may seem a bold question on the part of St. Thomas, but he never avoids a problem-he is not afraid of them. So he asks the question: “May one exercise fraternal correction towards one’s superiors?” After consideration of all necessary and useful distinctions, he replies: “Fraternal correction may be exercised in the case of superiors where the faith is concerned.” He is altogether right. It is not by Virtue of being a superior that any may impose on us the loss of our faith, that he may command a diminution of faith. That is the whole problem. We have no right to run the risk of losing the faith; it is the most precious gift we have and, were we stronger in our faith, we should avoid slipping gently into heresy.
What will become of those children who have studied these new catechisms for years? For those of us who are no longer young and were brought up in the true faith through the true catechism, the danger is extremely slight. What, however, will the children and young seminarians brought up in such a milieu become? That was the question put to me by the Superior General of the Franciscans, whom I met recently in Rome. He said: “Your Excellency, it is not so much for us that this is a grave crisis, but for the young seminarians now in the universities. What will they know of dogmatic and moral theology? From now on, nothing!” Moreover, since they no longer want to study these sciences, they take up experimental psychology and sociology. They no longer study dogmatic or moral theology, or canon law or the history of the Church. All that no longer interests them. Well? Those will be the priests of tomorrow. Bishops even! What is to become of your children’s faith then, of the faith of those alive at that time? We have no right to wash our hands of the matter.
Just as this crisis of faith is manifesting itself in teaching and the magisterium, it is becoming equally apparent in the priesthood and the liturgy. The conception of the priesthood and of the priest which the faith gives us has gone. Definitions are being gradually changed. Within holy Church the priest has always been looked upon as one having a “character” given by the sacrament of Order in preparation for the holy sacrifice of the Mass-the holy sacrifice, not the Supper, not any kind of communion, not the breaking of the bread of charity or the bread of the community. He was ordained for the holy sacrifice of the Mass and the continuation of the sacrifice of the cross on the altar, for the shedding on the altar of the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, for bringing to the altar by words of Consecration Him who is the King and Prince of the universe, the Creator of all things, the Savior, the Redeemer. It is for this that the priest has the sacerdotal “character” and that he is a priest. That is what a priest is; that is what we were always taught. Hence, during our years in the seminary, we had but one desire, to mount the steps of the altar. Oh! for the day when I should celebrate my first Mass! My tonsure was the first step on the way, then minor orders, then the subdiaconate, my promise of chastity, and then the diaconate; and, at last, the ascent to the altar to speak the words of Consecration, the sacrificial act, which is not a mere recital as it is today. It is not the story of the Passion! It is a true act and a true sacrifice which takes place at that moment, and it is of faith that “Soli sacerdotes sunt ministri sacrificii.”
Today we are told, “It is the whole assembly which makes the sacrifice.” The assembly indeed participates in the sacrifice, but does not offer the sacrifice, and it is not the minister of the sacrifice. The priest alone is the minister of the sacrifice. It is in this that the priest’s dignity lies. It is because of this that the priest cannot become an ordinary being. He cannot put himself on the same footing as the unconsecrated, as those who have not this sacerdotal “character.” Any such attempt would be vain. Before the angels, before God, for all eternity, the priest is a priest. In vain might he consign his cassock to the dust bin. In vain would he put on a red or multicolored pullover, he is still a priest. And if he seeks to hide his sacerdotal character he betrays his mission. Yes, he is a traitor to his mission.
The world needs the priest; the world cannot do without priests, and the priest must show himself. He has no right to conceal his “character.” He is a priest from morning to night; twenty-four hours of his day he is a priest! At all times he may be called for confession, for extreme unction, to give counsel to lost souls. The priest must be present. Thus, to make himself profane, to lack faith in his sacerdotal character signifies the end of the priest, the end of the priesthood; and we are reaching that point. No wonder seminaries are empty.
Why does the priest preserve his celibacy? There again we must appeal to faith. If we lose faith in the priesthood, if we lose the idea that the priest is made for sacrifice, that unique sacrifice which “is the sacrifice of the altar, which is the continuation of the sacrifice of our Lord, we lose altogether the meaning of celibacy. There is no longer any reason for the priest’s celibacy. We shall certainly be told that the priest is so busy and so absorbed by his functions that he cannot assume the care of a family. There is no sense in this argument. The doctor, if he has a true vocation for medicine, is as busy as a priest. If he be a true doctor and is called in day and night, he must be present to treat those who beg him to come to their aid. Hence, he too should remain unmarried since he cannot have time to spend on his wife and children. It is absurd to say that a priest is so busy that he could not take on the burden of a household. The deep reason for priestly celibacy does not lie in that. The real reason for the consecrated celibacy of the priest is that same reason for which the Most Blessed Virgin has remained a virgin, because she bore our Lord in her womb. It was therefore both right and just that she should remain forever virgin. In the same way the priest, by the words he speaks at the Consecration, brings God to earth. Such is his nearness to God, a spiritual being, the Supreme Spirit, that it is good and right and eminently fitting that the priest should be a virgin and remain celibate. That is the fundamental reason: it is because the priest has received the “character” which allows of his speaking the words of Consecration and bringing our Lord to earth that he may give Him to others. Therein lies the reason for his virginity.
But, you will say to me, why are there married priests in the East? It is a matter of tolerance. Make no mistake, it is simply tolerated. Ask the Eastern priests. A bishop may not be married. None of those Eastern clergy exercising functions of any importance may be married. Marriage is merely tolerated, and the conception is not one held by the Eastern clergy themselves. For they also reverence the celibacy of the priest. In any case it is absolutely certain that from the season of Pentecost, even if they lived with their wives, the Apostles no longer “knew” them. After all, to whom was our Lord speaking when He said: “If you would be my disciples leave all things, leave your wives.” Having received the Holy Spirit, how could the Apostles, the first to be filled with the light and power of the Holy Spirit, fail to obey the behest of our Lord Himself?
But, you will tell me, St. Paul did indeed say that he had no wife. True, St. Paul had no wife who went about with him. The Apostles’ wives doubtless continued to follow their husbands. However, profiting by the grace of the Holy Spirit which had descended upon their husbands, the Apostles, they understood what must be their future part. They were content to follow their husbands, but without “knowing” them. That is certainly the tradition of holy Church, and that is the reason for the celibacy of the priest.
Once the definition of the priestly state is lost there can be no sound conception of what it is. Hence we are now asking, What is a priest? What is priesthood? So then, after two thousand years of priests in the Church do we not yet know What a priest is? But that is lunacy. Now, it seems, the priest is said to exist for evangelization. A cardinal said that very thing to me when I told him that my seminary was wholly centered on the altar. From the sacrifice one passes to the apostolate, to evangelization, since it is from our Lord’s heart that there should spring that flame which fires the priest, who then preaches our Lord to bring souls to the Eucharist and thus to our Lord Himself That is the two-way action which the priest should take. He speaks of our Lord. But if he is created for evangelization only, I wonder evangelization of what, if it is not of Jesus Christ. It is the preaching of a so-called social justice that is neither more nor less than a real revolution.
Do not be surprised, then, if priests become Marxists. It is natural, all quite natural and logical. The people must be freed; that is the new aim of the priesthood, the liberation of humanity, ruptures. That is what the priest should preach! They are turned into militant trade unionists. Then they are understood; it is a new mystique of which the priest has need, of which the young have need. That is how they find it. But they have lost the mystique of the altar, of sacrifice. Do not be surprised that the priest, utterly bewildered, marries, that he gives up his priesthood. And there is now talk you have heard (I will name no names, but you will realize at once what I am talking about) of priests for a limited time. All this
is extremely serious.
It is the same with the Mass: if the priest is not defined by the sacrifice, and if the sacrifice is not defined by the oblation of the Victim who is our Lord Jesus Christ present on the altar, but if the sacrifice is defined as an assembly coming together for a meal, the essential and most important element-the Victim-has been left out. Indeed, there is no further need of a victim since there is no sacrifice. It is a meal. If, then, it is simply a meal, there is no further need for the victim to be present, and therefore no more need of the Real Presence of our Lord. Obviously, I could continue with the other sacraments, but I do not want to go on too long.
Another domain in which we must revive our faith, the better to realize the gravity of the situation, is the domain of the Church herself, for there is no longer faith in the holy Church; it is being lost day by day. There is a desire to submit the Church to common law, to put her on the same footing and the same level as all other religions. Even among priests, seminarians, and professors in seminaries there is a reluctance to speak of the Catholic Church as the only Church, and to state that she has the truth, that she alone brings salvation to men through Jesus Christ. When you are virtuous, you have done with vice; in so far as you are in the truth, you forsake error; in so far as you are going to heaven, you avoid hell. Do not let us come to say, then, that the Church is on the same footing as the religions which are in error: that is not possible. Well, now it is said openly: The Church is now no more than a spiritual ferment in society, but equal with other religions, perhaps a little better than the others. The Church, then is merely useful. She is no longer necessary, and that is radically contrary to the very dogma of the Catholic Church.
The Church is necessary; the Church is the one ark of salvation; we must state it. That has always been the adage of theology: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Is that intolerance? No, it is the teaching of theology; it is the truth. This does not mean that none among other religions may be saved. But none is saved by his erroneous and false religion. If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism, or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the Blood of our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps because of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion, since none can be saved by error. It is not possible. Error is contrary to truth; it is a break with the Holy Spirit. One cannot be saved by something which no longer possesses the Holy Spirit. One cannot be saved by a false religion.That has always been the Church’s teaching. How many, then, have been saved? That is the great mystery of predestination, the great mystery of the good God and His mercy; we do not know.
One thing, however, is certain: God has asked us to go and preach the Gospel. “He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.” What intolerance! Yet our Lord did indeed say: “He that believeth not shall be damned.” People must then be shown the light. If they are not told that they will be condemned if they will not believe, how can they wish to believe? Why, before the Council, were 170,000 Protestants in the United States and 80,000 in England yearly converted to Catholicism? Today there are very few. Why? Because the definition of the Church has been changed and the missionary spirit quenched. It cannot be said that all religions are of equal value. For if all religions were of equal value, why should there be any evangelization? Why set off and cross the seas? Why go to Africa or India? There is no longer any need if people can be saved within their own religion. The missionary spirit is utterly extinguished by this bad definition of the Church.
Only in so far as one says: “Salvation comes only through the Church” (and this the Church has always proclaimed) is it worthwhile to cross the seas to save some souls, to ask them to believe in our Lord and so be saved. These souls are nevertheless subject to original sin, and original sin has grave consequences. It seriously wounds our human nature, our soul. They are the four famous wounds of which St. Thomas speaks, the wounds of ignorance, malice, weakness, and concupiscence which remain even in us here present, though we have been baptized. Those wounds are still within us, and they need to be bound up and lessened that we may better live the life of Christ Jesus.
I myself spent thirty years in Africa. I have lived among these peoples, and I can tell you that there exists among them, for example, one very grave thing-hatred. There are few of those people who do not hate someone. One village hates the neighboring village. Within the Village one hates a particular family. Why? Because the villagers believe that in times past that family cast a spell on their own family, and by reason of that spell one of their own family has died, and that creates ill feeling. “Such and such a family cast a spell on yours,” parents tell their children, “and because they cast that spell, your grandfather died. Remember.” Hence springs hatred, a profound hatred which may go as far as murder or poisoning. Old family bitterness, old family rancor-it is a mortal sin to nourish in one’s heart the desire for murder.
God is indeed merciful. He understands that they live in an intricate and dramatic complex of life and society; all the same, they may render themselves guilty of mortal sin, so we must go and carry the gospel to these peoples. God asks it of us: “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mk. 15:16). Hence comes the gravity of this change in the definition of the Church.
I should like to speak also of the constitution of the Church, which has always been a constitution in which authority is personal. The pope has his personal authority because he is Bishop of Rome, because as Bishop of Rome he is the successor of Peter on the Chair of Peter in Rome; he is thus the universal Pontiff because he is Bishop of Rome. He must first be named Bishop of Rome, and when he takes his seat on the chair of Rome, he becomes Peter’s successor; and being the successor of Peter, he becomes the universal Pontiff. This is the tradition and truth taught by the Church; and that is why all the cardinals who elect the Holy Father are parish priests of Rome, for it belongs to the Roman clergy to elect their bishop. All the cardinals have Roman titles-they are parish priests of Rome, and on the Roman churches you may see the coats of arms of one or another cardinal. They are truly parish priests, under obligation to pay a pastoral visit to their churches when they visit Rome. And the cardinals elect the Bishop of Rome who, because he becomes Bishop of Rome, becomes the pope of the universal Church. It is thus personally that the pope is elected! The bishops then receive their consecration personally; through that consecration they receive a personal grace; priests too are personally consecrated. In the Church authority has always been given personally. Now there seems to be a growing desire to replace and submerge this authority in the authority of a college. This means that authority finds its hands tied.
The pope feels that his hands are more or less tied by the synod; the bishop feels his hands tied by his council of priests; the parish priest feels his hands tied because he must now consult his parishioners. It seems that if he gives directions personally he is guilty of an abuse of authority. It all ends by submerging personal in collective authority, and this is entirely contrary to the whole constitution of the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Since I do not want to trespass on your patience I will now come to the crux, I should say the heart of my lecture. I hope not to upset you, but I myself have so strong a conviction, so deep a persuasion that I cannot keep silence. Oh! I realize that I shall be told that I am against the Council. I am not against the Council, that is not true, but I could have wished that the Council bore more resemblance to its preparation.
I took part in the preparations for the Council as a member of the Central Preparatory Commission. Thus, for two years I was present at all its meetings. It was the business of the Central Commission to check and examine all the preparatory schemata issued by all the committees. Consequently, I was well placed for knowing what had been done, what remained to be examined, and what was to be put forward during the Council.
This work was carried out very conscientiously and with a concern for perfection. I possess the seventy-two preparatory schemata and can state, speaking generally, that in these seventy-two schemata the doctrine of the Church was absolutely orthodox and that there was hardly any need for retouching. There was, therefore, a fine piece of work for presentation to the Council-schemata in conformity with the Church’s teaching, adapted to some extent to our era, but with prudence and Wisdom.
Now you know what happened at the Council. A fortnight after its opening not one of the prepared schemata remained, not one! All had been turned down, all had been condemned to the wastepaper basket. Nothing remained, not a single sentence. All had been thrown out. It was laid down in the Council’s rules that a two-thirds majority was needed for the rejection of a preparatory schema. Now, in the sixth or seventh meeting of the Council a vote was taken on the preparatory schemata to decide on their study or rejection. Two-thirds of the votes were therefore needed for their rejection. As it happened, there were sixty percent against and forty percent in favor. The two-thirds majority was lacking so, under the rules of the Council, there should naturally have been a study of the schemata.
It should be said that there already existed at that time an extremely powerful body, well organized by the cardinals from the Rhineland and their perfectly equipped secretariat. They brought pressure on Pope John, saying to him, “It is inadmissible to ask us to study schemata which did not carry a majority. They must be rejected outright.” Pope John XXIII sent us word that given the fact that less than half the members of the meeting had voted for the schemata, all were rejected. After a fortnight we were left without any preparation. It was really inconceivable. Which of you gentlemen, if chairman of an administrative council, or taking part in your company’s annual meeting, would consent to meet without any preparation or any agenda? That is how the Council began.
Then there was the matter of the commissions, which were to become conciliar commissions. To begin with, there were the preconciliar commissions which had made the preparations for the Council, then the conciliar commissions had to be elected. Thereupon, a second drama ensued! You can read about that in Fr. Wiltgen’s book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber. It is a book written in English and translated, which is found among the publications of Le Cedre. Fr. Wiltgen was the director of the Council’s best press agency. His papers appeared in between eighty and eighty-five languages, from which you will see that he was extremely well organized. He was clearly very well informed and wrote this book in which he speaks of “victories.” He is a wholly impartial witness since one cannot tell whether he is liberal or conservative; he is first and foremost a technician, the press technician. For him the inter-change of ideas is not important. All that mattered to him was organization and diffusion. Hence he wanted plenty of personalities to interview. Everything was written up and sent out in all these languages-he is therefore an impartial witness. Later he wrote this extraordinary book that shows how a single organization took over the Council. What would you have me do? It is a fact of history and undeniable. As a result, the commissions that were to be set up got us into difficulties.
Picture the bishops arriving from their countries. They know one or two of their colleagues well. But how can bishops coming from all over the world and meeting in Rome know which of their colleagues assembled there are most fitted to be on the commission for Priesthood, on the one for Liturgy or for Canon Law. They are unknown to each other. Hence Cardinal Ottaviani quite properly circulated to all of them the list of members who had been on the preconciliar commissions; people, that is, who had been chosen by the Holy See and who had already worked on the commissions. It seems natural enough that some of them should be on the conciliar commissions. There was an immediate uproar. I need not name the person who sounded the alarm and said: “To submit names is to exert intolerable pressure on the Council. The Council Fathers must be left free. Once again the Roman Curia is exerting pressure to get its members elected to the Committees.” Somewhat taken aback by this revolt, the meeting was adjourned, and in the afternoon the Secretary, Bishop Felici, informed us: “Well, the Holy Father agrees that it may perhaps be preferable that the episcopal conferences should meet and furnish the lists.” Now, episcopal conferences were still in an embryonic state. They met to nominate members whom they considered particularly qualified to be on the commissions. But the people behind this coup d’etat were prepared. They already had all their lists, all the commissions prepared, and all the names chosen from the various countries, for they knew their men; and they submitted their names to us there and then. It so happened that the episcopal conferences had not had time to meet, as it had to be done Within twenty-four hours, and so they could not present names soon enough.
Obviously the lists were accepted by a big majority. Hence, from the very beginning of the Council, we were confronted with committees, two-thirds of whose members showed a very marked trend, the remaining third being nominated by the Holy Father. This became clearly apparent in the schemata teaching us, schemata wholly different in tendency from those of the preparatory commissions. Had I but time and opportunity, I should like to publish both texts-the preparatory and those given us later. It is clear that their orientations differ greatly. Certain things dominated the Council and directed its course.
It must be admitted that the same thing happened where the four moderators, elected after the presidents, were concerned. Pope John XXIII had appointed ten Council presidents. After Pope John XXIII’s death Pope Paul VI appointed only four moderators after the second session of the Council. These four moderators were Cardinal Dopfner, Cardinal Suenens, Cardinal Lercaro, and Cardinal Agagianian. The trend was obvious, it carried enormous weight for the mass of Council Fathers.
We might have had a splendid council by following up its preparations and taking Pope Pius XII as master and doctor of the Council. Pius XII had something to say on all problems. Reference to him was all that was necessary. I do not believe that there exists a single problem of the modern world and our day that he has not settled with all his learning, all his theology, all his holiness. To all, Pope Pius XII offered a solution; I do not say an ultimate, but almost final solution. That is because he really saw things from the point of View of faith. But no, there was no desire for a dogmatic council. Be sure to remember that. Pope John XXIII said it and Pope Paul VI repeated it. During the meetings of the Council we have often sought to get definitions of ideas. Define religious freedom, collegiality, etc. There came the reply: “But we are not being dogmatic, we are not stating a philosophy. We are concerned with pastoral theology.”
Define what a man is, define what is human dignity. It is all very fine to speak of human dignity, but what does it mean? What is liberty? Define those terms. No, no. We are concerned with matters pastoral. So be it-you are dealing with pastoral questions, but in that case your council is not like the other councils. The other councils were dogmatic. All the councils have combated errors. God knows there were errors enough to combat in our time. There were ample for the calling of a dogmatic council, and I well remember Cardinal Wyszinsky’s saying to us: “Draw up a schema on Communism; if there is one grave error threatening the entire world today, that is it. If Pope Pius XI felt it his duty to issue an encyclical on Communism, it would remain very useful for us, gathered here in full assembly, to draw up a schema on Communism.”
We obtained the signatures of six hundred bishops in favor of a declaration against Communism. But do you know how the story ended? The six hundred signatures were left forgotten in a drawer. And when the Chairman for Gaudium et Spes put the problem before us he said: “There have been two petitions for the condemnation of Communism.”
“Two petitions!” we answered, “there are over six hundred.”
“Then,” said he, “I know nothing about them.” A search was made. The six hundred signatures were left once more lying in the drawer.
I know these things through personal experience. If I tell you of them it is not to condemn the Council. It could have been a magnificent thing, but as matters fell out, it must be admitted that nothing can justify some occurrences. Yet, you will say, the Council is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Not necessarily. A pastoral, non-dogmatic council is a sermon which does not of itself invoke infallibility.
When at the close of the sessions we asked the Secretary of the Council, “Could you not give us what theologians call the keynote of the Council,” he replied, “Distinctions must be drawn among the various schemata and chapters, between those which had been the subject of dogmatic definition in the past and statements with the stamp of novelty; the latter call for certain reservations.” This Council, then, is not a council like the others, and for that reason we have a right to judge it prudently and with some reservation. We have no right to say that the crisis through which we are going is wholly unrelated to the Council, that it is simply a misrepresentation of the Council.
There were time bombs in the Council. I believe there were three: collegiality, religious freedom, and ecumenism. Collegiality, which corresponds to the term Egalite of the French Revolution, has the same ideology. Collegiality means the destruction of personal authority; democracy is the destruction of the authority of God, of the authority of the pope, of the authority of the bishops. Collegiality corresponds to the equality of the Revolution of 1789.
Religious freedom is the second time bomb. Religious freedom corresponds to the term Liberte of the French Revolution. It is an ambiguous term which the devil loves to use. That term was never understood in the meaning accepted by the Council. All earlier documents of the Church which speak of religious freedom mean the liberty of religion, never the liberty of religions. When speaking of that freedom, the Church was invariably referring to liberty for religion and tolerance for other religions. Error is tolerated. To give it freedom is to give it a right; but it has none. Truth alone has rights. To acknowledge freedom of religions is to give equal rights to truth and error. That is impossible. The Church can never say anything of the kind. To speak thus is, in my opinion, to blaspheme. It is opposed to the glory of God-God is Truth, Jesus Christ is Truth. To put Jesus Christ on the same footing as a Mahomet or as a Luther, what is it but blasphemy? If we have faith we have no right to admit this. It is the error of common law condemned by Pope Pius IX and all the popes. With religious liberty, it is liberty as understood by the French Revolution that penetrated the Council.
So, to the last time bomb: ecumenism. If you think for a moment you will realize that it corresponds to Fraternite. Heretics were referred to as brethren, Protestants as separated brethren. There you have fraternity. With ecumenism we have really achieved it; it is brotherhood with Communists. Time and again the popes have pointed it out. In his Encyclical Immortale Dei, Leo XIII wrote on the new law and the old law. The new law is revolutionary ideology as a whole. Read all those passages again, and you will realize that we are now living what happened in civil society and is now happening in the Church. Every pope from the time of the French Revolution had set up an insurmountable barrier against the errors of the Revolution; the ideas of the Revolution never penetrated the Church. By these three terms-collegiality, religious liberty, and ecumenism-the modernists have got what they wanted.
These, then, are the aims against which we have striven. The Church has indeed the words of eternal life, she will not perish, but who can say how small a remnant of her little flock will survive once these errors and ideologies have penetrated everywhere.
What is to be said of the liturgy and of the sacraments? If the Eucharist is to be valid, and so for all the other sacraments, there must be present the matter, form, and intention necessary for their validity. The pope himself cannot alter that. The matter is of divine institution; the pope cannot say: “Tomorrow, alcohol shall be used for the baptizing of infants.” It is not within his power. There are things in the sacraments the pope cannot change. Neither can be essentially change the form; certain words are essential. One may not say, for example, “I baptize you in the name of God.” Our Lord Himself gave us the form: “You shall baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Neither can the pope alter the fact that the priest’s intention is necessary. How can that be known? Remember the historical fact of Pope Leo XIII’s proclamation that all Anglican orders were invalid for lack of intention; lack of intention because it is necessary to will what the Church wills. True, the faith of the priest is not a necessary element: one priest may no longer have the faith, another’s may have dwindled, a third may not believe fully; that has no direct, only an indirect, influence on the validity of the sacraments. Now, Anglicans by the very fact that they have lost the faith, have refused to do what the Church does.
Would not the same situation arise in the case of priests who have lost the faith? We shall find priests who will no longer carry out the sacrament of the Eucharist in accordance with the definition of the Council of Trent. If they are asked: “Is the Eucharist that you are celebrating that of the Council of Trent?” The reply will be: “No. Much has happened since the days of the Council of Trent. We have Vatican II now. Now it is transignification and transfinalisation. Transubstantiation-the Real Presence of our Lord, of the Body of our Savior, the physical presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine? No, not in these days.” Should priests say that to you, the Consecration is invalid, for they no longer carry out what the Church defined at the Council of Trent. That is irreformable. What the Council of Trent laid down on the Holy Mass and the Eucharist Christians are bound to believe till the end of time. Terms may be made more explicit, but they cannot be changed; that is an impossibility. Whoever says that he does not accept transubstantiation, says the Council of Trent, is anathema, and therefore separated from the Church. One day you may be obliged to ask your priests: “Do you believe in the definitions of the Council of Trent, yes or no? If you no longer believe, your Eucharist is invalid. The Lord is not present.” Because they are desirous of doing what the so-called new theology, the new religion, seeks to do, it is no longer what the Church wills. That is why we must be very circumspect. One may not do what one likes with the sacraments. The sacraments were instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and explicitly defined by the whole tradition of the Church.
What, then, must we do? I will not trespass on your patience by a longer discourse. Confronted with this unleashing of the devil against the Church-for it is indeed that-what are we to do? We must look at things in terms of the supernatural. The devil is at large today-this is perhaps one of his last battles, an out-and-out conflict. He is seeking to attack on all fronts. If Our Lady of Fatima said that one day the devil would mount to the highest spheres of the Church, it is not, perhaps, incorrect. For myself, I affirm nothing, I condemn no-one, but if it be true that she said it, it could happen. When will it happen? I do not know, but there are now signs and symptoms which might lead us to suspect that among the highest circles in Rome there are now people who have lost the faith. I am ready to say, do, and grant whatever the powers in Rome, from the pope himself to the lowest secretaries of Congregations desire, provided that they do not rob us of our faith. Do not make me change what the Council of Trent said. Do not make me change my Credo. Do not make me change the essence of the sacraments. If an angel from heaven tells you what is contrary to the truth, says St. Paul, do not listen to him.
We must pray. We must do penance. The Blessed Virgin has told us so. But we must put it into practice. We must say the rosary as a family. We must pray before the Blessed Sacrament. Pray to our Lord, to our Lady, to our guardian angels. We must pray to St. Michael the Archangel, we must live among those in heaven that they may intercede for us and help us in our tragic plight. Today, it is when bombs are beginning to fall or there are other grave dangers that people have recourse to prayer; it is then that they begin to tremble and think of God.
But we are living at a time when bombs are raining on us, and we are in danger of losing the faith. It is infinitely worse to lose the life of the soul than the life of the body. Let us, therefore, pray and do penance. We should know how to do without television and break with the desires of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, the pride of life and honors. We must know how to do penance, abstaining from all that is too much of this world, all that panders to the flesh and indecent dress. All such things should be wholly forbidden to true Christians or we shall be bereft of God’s grace, the grace needful now to our salvation. We should go from one disaster to another.
Finally, you must organize your apostolate, and give help and succor to your priests. I fully realize their present problems of resistance, especially for those in the ministry, those who hold office. I fully understand that it is difficult, because a moral pressure is exerted on them and it puts them under a kind of obligation to act as they do and to modify to some extent all the rites of the Mass. The adoration of the Blessed Sacrament that used to take place, all the Benedictions of the Blessed Sacrament that used to be celebrated, all that is disappearing; the rosary must no longer be said, and so forth. Your priests need support. If they feel themselves in the midst of encouraging Christians, priests will again take courage and revert to the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the recitation of the rosary; they will no longer give Communion in the hand; they will not invite just anybody to preach or choose just any reading. Little by little there will be a return to good and healthy traditions, even-so far as possible-to the traditional Canon at least. It is a prayer dating back to the Apostles.
When we are told: “You have no right to do this; Pope St. Pius V made one Mass, Pope Paul VI has made another. You should adopt the Mass of Pope Paul VI and abandon that of Pope St. Pius V,” it is not at all the same thing. The Mass given us is an altered Mass. The best proof of this is to be found in the definition of the Mass in Article VII, which is not the same definition as that of the Council of Trent. Pope St. Pius V changed nothing. On the contrary, he simply codified what was from the time of the Apostles. St. Thomas himself says so: explaining the whole Mass, he says frequently that these prayers belong to the apostolic tradition. The prayers of the Canon and many others are thus those of the apostolic tradition. Pope St. Pius V changed nothing. It is now that, for the sake of ecumenism, for the sake of praying jointly with Protestants, we are made to change. In his-«dare I say-naiveté, Fr. Schutz of Taizé said it in plain terms when, coming back from Rome where he had been attached to the Commission for the Liturgy and for the Reform of the Mass, he commented: “Now we can say the Mass with Catholic priests.” Why now? Why not before? Clearly something has changed.
Then comes the question of the catechism: Catechisms must be organized in such a way that there will be groups formed everywhere to expound true doctrine and ensure that children shall be well taught. God will bless you. Of that you may be sure. But what will our priests say? What will the parish priests say? We shall be refused First Communion, Confirmation. Leave that to God in His goodness. Teach your children the Faith and all will be well. God will one day set wide the doors. Already, bishops are becoming seriously worried. No-one left in the seminaries! There will be no more priests... As for you, keep the faith, give the faith to the children, and you will find that all will go well.
In any case, I can assure you of one thing-my seminarians hold fast to the faith, and I am edified by these young people. They are pious, they are lighthearted. Many of them have taken their degrees: I have two engineers, a doctor, four or five B.A.’s in mathematics and an MA. in biology. They are no longer children, but young men who know what they are doing, who know what they want. Hence I have great confidence in these young people and am convinced of their outstanding qualities. For me, it is a miracle, a real miracle. For all these young people have lived like all the other young people, they have been in the universities and so been in contact with the world. When it is said that these young people will not be fitted for the world-come, are they not drawn from the universities? One of them read biology for seven years, and he would not be adapted to the world? Be serious! These young people are well aware of what they are doing. They love the holy sacrifice of the Mass because they see that it is the heart of the Church. It is all deeply consoling and encouraging. I assure you that you must in no way despair of our time-on the contrary. There are still very fine vocations; do but give these vocations the opportunity to flower naturally, and our seminaries will be full once more.
I am convinced that could I open seminaries today in the United States, in England, in Italy, and even in German Switzerland, I could fill them with true vocations. It is an absolute certainty. If I tell you this, it is to encourage you so that you may not lose heart, and I keenly hope that you too may be able to say with St. Paul in the evening of his days, when he was awaiting our Lord’s reward: “I have kept the faith.” Why did he say that? Because he realized that to keep the faith to the end of one’s days, even until death, is a very great grace from God, it is the greatest grace of all that of final perseverance. I pray God that you too, till the ending of your days, may keep the faith so that the Church may live on.
A Bishop Speaks, Writings and Addresses 1963-1976, Angelus Press, 2nd ed., 2007, pp. 119-142
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1971 Address - The Priest and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:47 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
THE PRIEST AND THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
Address given at the retreat for the priest-members of the Association of Priests and Religious of St. Anthony Mary Claret.
Barcelona, Spain
March 1971
My dear Friends,
It is all too clear that the great suffering of the Church today is born of the number of perjured priests, of the many priests who, heedless of their sacred character, laicize themselves, take on the spirit of the world, and forsake the only true wisdom which our Lord has taught us, the wisdom of the cross.
In the face of these betrayals and these desertions you, by your attitude, by your declarations and by your publications, have reacted healthily, firmly professing your faith. May you be thanked, congratulated, and heartened for the holy example you have given and are still giving to all priests throughout the world. Since you have done me the honor of an invitation to come and speak a few words to you, I should like, with God’s grace and in all humility, to set before you in a few questions a problem vital to the priest, to every Catholic priest.
You admit that many priests have lost the true sense of the priesthood, that they are asking what a priest is and what part he should play in society! Well! I venture to ask you this question: What is the essential role of the priest, the reason why our Lord Jesus Christ established that office? If we are to cure these priests of their self-distrust, we must ourselves understand the nature of the priest in order both to help our wavering brothers who are in danger of going astray and to find aid in our own striving for sanctification.
You have, of course, already answered the question: What is a priest? You answer it in your hearts, I think, in the words spoken at the birth of the priesthood: “Do this in memory of me.” Indeed, the Church has always believed and proclaimed that it is through these words that the Apostles received a share in the priesthood of our Lord, i.e., the sacrament of Order.
Yes, the words are brief, but how heavy with meaning: “this” “in memory of me.” This - the sacrifice of the cross continued, perpetuated in its physical and mystical reality. It is the sacrifice of the cross continued by the Bread and Wine consecrated and become substantially the Body and Blood of Jesus. This – is the sacrifice of bloodless oblation, of the living Christ immolated on the cross once and for all and continuing to plead for us! This – is the Body and Blood of the risen Jesus becoming the food of His Mystical Body, for it is by this sacrifice of the cross that the graces of the resurrection enter into the souls of the faithful at baptism, in penance, in extreme unction, and in all the graces of the sacraments.
Sharers in the priesthood of Christ Jesus, ministers of the divine mysteries, chosen and marked by our Lord’s election as priests for all eternity, we are this for the sacrifice of the holy Mass and by the sacrifice of the Cross, both being substantially the same and unique sacrifice of our Lord. Thus, at the call of the priest, there rises the cross on which hangs the ideal Priest, the ideal Victim, the raison d’étre of the Incarnate Word, the raison d’étre of the Redeemer. Tota vita crux et martyrium!
The priest has no reason for existence, no meaning, save in the sacrifice of the Mass. Let us then seek for a better understanding of the Mass that we may better understand our priesthood. We will say a few words about the priesthood and sacrifice in general, then about the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ and, finally, about that priesthood continued in Holy Mass by the ministry of priests.
RELIGION, SACRIFICE, PRIESTHOOD
The human race has always felt the need for priests, i.e., for men who, by a mission officially confided to them, may act as mediators between God and humanity; men who, wholly consecrated to this mediation, make it their life’s work; men chosen to offer to God official prayers and sacrifices in the name of society which, as such, shares the duty of rendering to God this public and social worship, recognizing Him as the supreme lord and first principle, stretching out to Him as to their last end, giving Him thanks and seeking His favour.
Indeed, among all the peoples Whose customs are known to us, when not forced by violence to deny the most sacred laws of human nature, priests are to be found, though often in the service of false gods; wherever any religion is professed or altars raised there is a priesthood, encompassed by special marks of honor and veneration. (Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacrodotii Fastigium, December 20, 1938)
Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Caritatis Stadium of July 25, 1898, said:
Quote:Necessitatem sacrrifcii vis ipsa et natura religionis continet....Remotisque sacrrificii nulla nec esse nec cogitari religio potent. - Now the very essence of Religion implies Sacrifice. For the perfection of Divine Worship is found in the submissive and reverent acknowledgment that God is the Supreme Lord of all things, by Whose power we and all our belongings exist. This constitutes the very nature of Sacrifice, which, on this account, is emphatically called a “thing Divine.” If Sacrifices are abolished, Religion can neither exist nor be conceived. (§10)
St. Thomas in Ila-Hae, Question 81, Art. 1, shows us very clearly that religion, which is a virtue supplementing the virtue of justice, binds us to God:
Quote:Religion...denotes properly a relation to God....Religion has two kinds of acts. Some are its proper and immediate acts, which it elicits, and by which man is directed to God alone, for instance, sacrifice, adoration and the like. But it has other acts, which it produces through the medium of the Virtues which it commands, directing them to the honor of God....Accordingly to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation is an act of religion as commanding...
Sacrifice, which means the offering up and the submission of man to God, is the outward act most perfectly befitting the nature of man.
In Question 85, Art. 1, St. Thomas tells us:
Quote:It is a dictate of natural reason that man should use certain sensibles, by offering them to God in sign of the subjection and honor due to Him, like those who make certain offerings to their lord in recognition of his authority. Now this is what we mean by a sacrifice, and consequently the offering of sacrifice is of the natural law.
Nothing, then, is as deeply engraved in human nature as religion and its essential act-sacrifice. Now, to achieve a holy thing “sacrum facere”-there must be consecrated persons set apart, capable of drawing near to God and serving Him. This person will be the priest-“sacerdos,” “sacra dans.” We shall see how, in his infinite goodness and mercy, God has so arranged all things that worship worthy of Him may be rendered by the men who have departed from Him.
THE PRIESTHOOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
If it be indeed true that the natural order demands that religion, sacrifice, and the priesthood should be closely united, so much so that one cannot be dissociated from the other without totally destroying religion, the order of revelation admirably confirms this. We cannot understand the incarnation of the Son of God without applying to Jesus those fundamental ideas which are the raison d’étre of the Incarnation: “Ego te glorificavi super terram, opus consummavi quod dedisti mihi ut faciam...Manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus” (Jn. 1714-6).
Jesus is God’s ideal religious. He is the perfect oblation, the perfect victim. We can never sufficiently meditate on these sublime and divine realities. St. Paul has described to us in moving terms the greatness of our Lord’s priesthood, the sublimity of His oblation and sacrifice. Jesus is essentially the Priest-Mediator, the Anointed, that is to say Christ, by His hypostatic union. He will forever be the one and only true priest, the one true victim acceptable to God. “Tu es sacredos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech.” Thus the essential acts of our natural and supernatural religion have been forever determined by God’s Son Jesus Christ, His divine Son.
Let us then marvel at God’s ordering of all that relates thenceforth to the worship owed Him. It goes without saying that what God has ordained He has ordained for all eternity, and that none soever of His creatures may change the essential norms. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange has admirably expounded these things in his book The Love of God and the Cross of Jesus, for that is what will henceforward dominate all our holy religion, here on earth and in heaven-the cross of Jesus, the altar on which the Priest and Victim sacrificed Himself. What a Priest and what a Victim! “Habemus Pontifcem magnum, qui penetravit caelos, Jesum Filium Dei” (Heb. 4:14). “If there is a revealed doctrine which allows us to glimpse all the greatness of the sacrifice of the Mass,” says Fr. Garrigou, “it is unquestionably that of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” That is tantamount to saying: If there is a revealed doctrine that gives us a glimpse of the priest as he is and as he should be, it is unquestionably that of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let me draw your attention particularly to the following lines:
Quote:Just as the greatness of Mary, all her privileges and all that is the source of her glory today, came to her through her divine Motherhood, the dignity of the priest, his privileges and his duties come to him through his sharing in the priesthood of Christ, which he realizes in essence when he pronounces the words of consecration during the celebration of the holy sacrifice of the Mass. His priestly character, his virginity, his intrinsic power over the sacraments and the mystical Body of our Lord Jesus Christ derive from the power over His Body and Blood given by our Lord Himself.
As Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange says: “The more the ineffable riches of the priesthood of our Lord, of His Passion, His Cross, and His Resurrection are plumbed, the more deeply the mysterious realities of the Sacrifice of the Mass are penetrated.” Thus we have a clearer understanding of the definitions given by the Council of Trent against the Lutherans:
Quote:In the divine sacrifice accomplished in the course of the Mass, Christ, who offered Himself upon the altar of the Cross, shedding His blood for us, makes a bloodless sacrifice. It is the same Victim, it is also the same priest...idem nunc offerens sacradotum ministerio. He offered Himself on the Cross, He offers Himself now through His ministers, only the way of oblation differs. (Conc. Trid., Session 22, Canon 2, D2. 940.)
In substance, then, the sacrifice is the same. Thus, the better to measure the importance of the sacrifice of the Mass, then the reality of the priestly character that assimilates the priest to our Lord Himself, hypostatically united to the Word, and, finally, the real and substantial presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine, we must acknowledge in the Gospel how great a place our Lord Himself has given to His priesthood at the Last Supper and on the cross in His life here below-and for the times to come.
It is on the cross that He will say: “Consummatum est.” His work is finished. It is the hour which haunts Him all His life: “Nondum venit hora mea” (Jn. 2:4); “Sciens Jesus quia venit hora eius” (13:1); “Venit hora ut clarificetur Filius hominis” (12:23). The hour that Jesus foresees is the hour of sacrifice; He desires it. He wants it in conformity with the will of His Father. This hour dominates His whole life, it was for this that He came. It is at oncethe hour of His death and the hour of His triumph over the powers of darkness.
He who accomplishes this sacrifice and offers Himself as a victim for the redemption of the world is the Word of God made man. It is this same sacrifice which we accomplish on our altars; it is in this same priesthood that we participate.
St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, describes the infinite superiority of the priesthood of our Lord over that of Levi. Jesus is above the angels, above Moses-incomparably above the high priests of the Old Law: “Novissime, diebus istis locustus est nobis in Filio…: tanto melior angelis effectus, quanto differentius prae illis nomen hereditavit” (Heb. 1:2, 4).
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS; THE PRIESTHOOD OF PRIESTS
If you would know the why and wherefore of the real presence in the holy Mass, the reality of your priesthood and the necessity, for celibacy, since a married priest must always exist on sufferance as an exception destined to disappear, examine the greatness of our Lord’s priesthood and the sublimity of Christ’s sacrifice. You will then realize that your whole priestly being exists to continue the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ and thus to lead souls to this inexhaustible source of graces for their sanctification and glorification. As Fr. Garrigou rightly says: “Just as the priesthood is the supreme sacred function, sacrifice, as its name implies, is the supreme sacred action. There is no priesthood without sacrifice, there is no sacrifice without priesthood” (op. Cit. p. 757). Between the two terms there is a certain transcendental and essential relationship.
Jesus is the most perfect of priests, the holiest of victims, the most closely united to His Mystical Body. Indeed, Jesus as a priest could not be more closely united to God since He himself is God. He could not be more closely united to the Victim since He Himself is the victim. He could not be more closely united to men since He is the Head of the Mystical Body and has taken the same nature as they.
At Mass it is always the same Priest, the same victim, the same Mystical Body united with the Priest who is the Christ. The ministers offer the sacrifice only “in persona Christi.” The more deeply we enter into these considerations the more we must realize how close and how real is the bond between the Cross and Mass-that the bond between the eternal Priest and His ministers is necessary.
Here we put our finger on the three realities which are essential in the Mass for it to be the continuation of the sacrifice of the cross: the reality of sacrifice, i.e., the oblation of the victim brought about in the consecration; the real and substantial presence of the Victim that must be offered, and thus the necessity of transubstantiation; the need of a priest who is the minister of the principal Priest, who is our Lord, and consecrated by His priesthood.
The Church, to which our Lord bequeathed His ministerial priesthood to accomplish it till the end of time, has carried out the sacrifice of the Mass with love and devotion; it has ordained its prayers, ceremonies, and rites to signify these realities and to preserve our faith in these realities willed and determined by God Himself. The Council of Trent teaches us that (Session 22, Canon 5):
Quote:The nature of man being such that he cannot easily or without some external aids rise to meditation on divine things, the Church, as a good Mother, has established certain practices, such as speaking parts of the Mass quietly and others aloud; and in accordance with the discipline and tradition of the Apostles it has introduced such ceremonies as mystical blessings, lights, incense, ornaments and many kindred things so as, in that way, to signify the majesty of so great a sacrifice, and to raise the souls of the faithful by these outward signs of piety and religion to the contemplation of the great things hidden in this sacrifice.
We owe it to truth to affirm and maintain without fear of mistake that the Mass codified by St. Pius V clearly expressed these great realities of sacrifice, the Real Presence, and the sacerdotal character of priests, besides the essential relation to the sacrifice of the cross, from which all the supernatural Virtue of the Mass derives. To weaken and blur the expression of our faith in these realities which constitute the very essence of the sacrifice bequeathed to us by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself could lead to the most disastrous consequences, for the sacrifice of the Mass is the heart, the soul, and the mystical wellspring of the Church.
The whole history of Protestantism illustrates Luther’s blasphemous saying: “Let us destroy the Mass and we shall have destroyed the Church.” The recently canonized English martyrs sealed that truth with their blood. Do not the ills of the Church, the weakening of faith, the dwindling number of vocations, the destruction of religious communities, all these grievous effects of which we are the bewildered witnesses spring from the doing away with altars and their replacement by the tables of the Eucharistic meal? I leave these thoughts for your consideration.
CONCLUSION
Here are some quotations which may contribute to our sanctification:
Just as the whole life of the Savior was ordained to His own sacrifice, the entire life of the priest, which should inwardly reflect the image of Christ, should with Him, by Him and in Him be a sacrifice pleasing to God. Pius XII, Menti Nostrae, September 23, 1950.
So closely bound as he is to the divine mysteries, the priest cannot but hunger and thirst for justice and holiness. As he must offer and sacrifice himself with Christ, he cannot but feel the need to adapt his life to that high dignity and direct all his conduct to sacrifice. Thus he will not content himself with the celebration of Holy Mass; he will have it inwardly. By so doing he will draw the supernatural strength which will utterly transform him and enable him to share in the life of sacrifice of the divine Redeemer. In this way the priest will strive to reproduce in his soul What happens on the altar of sacrifice. It is the summons of St. Peter Chrysologos:
Be the sacrifice and the priest of God....Priests and my beloved sons, we hold within our hands a great treasure, the pearl of great price, namely, the inexhaustible riches of the Blood of Jesus Christ. Let us draw as fully as possible from this treasure so that, by the entire sacrifice of ourselves to the Father with Jesus Christ, we may be true mediators of holiness in all that touches the worship of God.
Pope John XXIII, taking up these words of his predecessor, added:
Quote:It is this lofty doctrine that the Church has in mind when she calls her ministers to a life of asceticism and adjures them to celebrate the eucharistic Sacrifice with deep piety. Is it not because of a failure to grasp the close, reciprocal bond which unites the daily offering of one’s self to the offering of the Mass that priests have gradually come to lose the first fervor of their ordination?
That was the experience attained by the Curé d’Ars: “The cause of the priest’s falling off is the neglect of the Mass” (Sacerodotti Nostri Primordia, August 1, 1959). Finally, here is the advice of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange:
Quote:To end with a practical conclusion. It is not possible to urge too strongly on interior souls the need for a great devotion to the Consecration, which is the very essence of the sacrifice of the Mass and the most solemn moment in our every day. Jesus, when He instituted the Eucharist, raised His eyes to heaven, His face lit up and He longed to annihilate Himself in some degree under the species of bread and wine to all eternity that He might thus remain really and substantially among us in giving Himself to us as food. Thus, at the moment of Consecration, the priest, Minister of the universal Mediator, must follow His example, lifting up his eyes to heaven in an ardent desire to unite himself with the oblation of the ever living Christ who does not cease to intercede for us and, with Himself, offer to His Father all the living members of His Mystical Body, especially those who follow His example of suffering (The Love of God, p. 771).
A poet, Jacques Debout, in his poem “The Three Against the Other, ” expresses through the mouth of Satan, who is attacking our Lord, the value of a Mass.
THE DEMON OF RICHES
What does He set up against us?
SATAN
The Eternal Sacrifice
Which has crushed my head and, despite my efforts,
Daily wrenches from me both the living and dead.
In the hidden, but true, destiny of nations
Masses are so many Revolutions.
Those which are unseen and in their lonely depths
Can disrupt worlds from within.
The Mass, overflowing both Priest and Missal,
Is an event, forever universal,
And when, powerless, I run my head against some obstacle,
It is because in a church, a barn or hut,
Some man, poor and infirm, has held in his hand
The formidable Host and the dread Wine.
A Bishop Speaks, Writings and Addresses 1963-1976, Angelus Press, 2nd ed., 2007, pp. 87-96
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1979 The New Mass and the Pope |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:41 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
The New Mass and the Pope
How often during these last ten years have I not had occasion to respond to questions concerning the weighty problems of the New Mass and the Pope. In answering them I have ever been careful to breathe with the spirit of the Church, conforming myself to her Faith as expressed in her theological principles, and to her pastoral prudence as expressed in moral theology and in the long experiences of her history.
I think I can say that my own views have not changed over the years and that they are, happily, those of the great majority of priests and faithful attached to the indefectible Tradition of the Church. It should be clear that the few lines which follow are not an exhaustive study of these problems, The purpose, rather is to clarify our conclusions to such an extent that no one may be mistaken regarding the official position of the Society of St, Pius X.
It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.
Now, it is easy to show that the New Mass, as it was formulated by the officially authorized Conciliar Liturgical Commission considered together with the accompanying explanation of Mgr. Bugnini, manifests an inexplicable rapprochement with the theology and liturgy of the Protestants. The following fundamental dogmas of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not clearly represented and are even contradicted:
- that the priest is the essential minister of the Rite;
- that in the Mass there is a true sacrifice, a sacrificial action;
- that the Victim or Host is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, present under the species of bread and wine, with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity;
- that this Sacrifice is a propitiatory one;
- that the Sacrifice and the Sacrament are effected by the words of the Consecration alone, and not also by those which either precede or follow them.
It is sufficient to enumerate a few of the novelties in the New Mass to be convinced of the rapprochement with the Protestants;
- the altar replaced by a table without an altar stone;
- Mass celebrated facing the people, concelebrated, in a loud voice, and in the vernacular;
- the Mass divided into two distinct parts: Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist;
- the cheapening of the sacred vessels, the use of leavened bread, distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, and by the laity, and even by women;
- the Blessed Sacrament hidden in corners;
- the Epistle read by women;
- Holy Communion brought to the sick by laity.
All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.
Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.
The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity. When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.
It is clear, however, that fewer and fewer Masses are valid these days, as the faith of priests is destroyed and they possess no longer the intention to do what the Church does – an intention which the Church cannot change. The current formation of those who are called seminarians today does not prepare them to celebrate Mass validly. The propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is no longer considered the essential work of the priest. Nothing is sadder or more disappointing than to read the sermons or teachings of the Conciliar bishops on the subject of vocations, or on the occasion of a priestly ordination. They no longer know what a priest is.
Nevertheless, in order to judge the subjective fault of those who celebrate the New Mass as of those who attend it, we must apply the roles of the discernment of spirits given us in moral and pastoral theology. We (the priests of the Society) must always act as doctors of the soul and not as judge and hangmen. Those who are tempted by this latter course are animated by a bitter spirit and not true zeal for souls. I hope that our young priests will be inspired by the words of St. Pius X in his first encyclical, and by the numerous texts on this subject to be found in such works as The Soul of the Apostolate by Dom Chautard, Christian Perfection and Contemplation by Garrigou-Lagrange, and Christ the Ideal of the Monk by Dom Marmion.
Let us now pass to a second but no less important subject: does the Church have a true Pope or an impostor on the Throne of St. Peter? Happy are those who have lived and died without having to pose such a question! One must indeed recognize that the pontificate of Paul VI posed, and continues to pose, a serious problem of conscience for the faithful. Without reference to his culpability for the terrible demolition of the Church which took place under his pontificate, one cannot but realize that he hastened the causes of that decline in every domain. One can fairly ask oneself how it was possible that a successor of Peter can, in so little time, have caused more damage to the Church than the French Revolution.
Some precise facts, such as the signatures which he gave to Article VII in the Instruction concerning the New Mass, and to the Declaration on Religious Liberty, are indeed scandalous and have led certain traditionalists to affirm that Paul VI was heretical and thus no longer Pope. They argue further that, chosen by a heretical Pope, the great majority of the cardinals are not cardinals at all and thus lacked the authority to elect another Pope. Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II were thus, they say, illegitimately elected. They continue that it is inadmissible to pray for a pope who is not Pope or to have any "conversations" (like mine of November 1978) with one who has no right to the Chair of Peter.
As with the question of the invalidity of the Novus Ordo, those who affirm that there is no Pope over-simplify the problem. The reality is more complex. If one begins to study the question of whether or not a Pope can be heretical, one quickly discovers that the problem is not as simple as one might have thought. The very objective study of Xaverio de Silverira on this subject demonstrates that a good number of theologians teach that the Pope can be heretical as a private doctor or theologian but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. One must then examine in what measure Pope Paul VI willed to engage in infallibility in the diverse cases where he signed texts close to heresy if not formally heretical.
But we can say that in the two cases cited above, as in many another, Paul VI acted much more the Liberal than as a man attached to heresy. For when one informed him of the danger that he ran in approving certain conciliar texts, he would proceed to render the text contradictory by adding a formula contrary in meaning to affirmations already in the text, or by drafting an equivocal formula. Now, equivocation is the very mark of the Liberal, who is inconsistent by nature.
The Liberalism of Paul VI, recognized by his friend, Cardinal Daniélou, is thus sufficient to explain the disasters of his pontificate. Pope Pius IX, in particular, spoke often of the Liberal Catholic, whom he considered a destroyer of the Church. The Liberal Catholic is a two-sided being, living in a world of continual self-contradiction. While he would like to remain Catholic, he is possessed by a thirst to appease the world. He affirms his faith weakly, fearing to appear too dogmatic, and as a result, his actions are similar to those of the enemies of the Catholic Faith.
Can a Pope be Liberal and remain Pope? The Church has always severely reprimanded Liberal Catholics, but she has not always excommunicated them. Here, too, we must continue in the spirit of the Church. We must refuse Liberalism from whatever source it comes because the Church has aways condemned it. She has done so because it is contrary, in the social realm especially, to the Kingship of Our Lord.
Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.
The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no Cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.
Our Fraternity absolutely refuses to enter into such reasonings.
We wish to remain attached to Rome and to the Successor of Peter, while refusing his Liberalism through fidelity to his predecessors. We are not afraid to speak to him, respectfully but firmly, as did St. Paul with St. Peter.
And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith.
Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph.
Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly, we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope.
In conclusion, we must have that missionary spirit which is the true spirit of the Church. We must do everything to bring about the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the words of our Holy Patron, St. Pius X: Instaurare omnia in Christo. We must restore all things in Christ, and we must submit to all, as did Our Lord in His Passion for the salvation of souls and the triumph of Truth. "In hoc natus sum," said Our Lord to Pilate, "ut testimonium perhibeam veritati." : “I was born to give witness to the Truth."
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1975 Address - The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:37 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - An Address Given by His Grace: Ottawa, Canada November 1975
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have come among you to primarily speak of the most pressing problem of our time, which is the preservation of our Catholic Faith. I am not referring simply to certain liturgical modifications, nor to certain aspects of renewal, which result from the Second Vatican Council. These details, of course, do have their importance. I am here rather to offer encouragement in the struggle to preserve the essentials of our Faith, for our Faith is vital, and before going on, I would like to bring your attention to what precisely constitutes the essentials of our Faith.
Our Lord Jesus Christ came down to earth to redeem mankind, and it was by means of the Cross-that He achieved this. The central point of Christ's life on earth, the purpose for which the Son of God became man was to die on the Cross for the salvation of all men, not only the faithful, not only Catholics, but all men. Unfortunately, not all men have accepted Christ's message but be they Buddhists, Moslems or Protestants, all - at least all who wished to be saved - are bound to achieve their salvation through the bloodshed for them by Jesus Christ.
This, of course, is very simple for us who are Catholics. This is our Faith, the Faith we have always been taught, and yet, in our own time, how many Catholics still do accept this truth, that salvation comes to all men through Jesus Christ, that outside of Christ there is no salvation? I find it extraordinary that Catholics will questions the age-old adage, "no salvation outside the Church." This is precisely the most important question facing mankind today, just as it was in all ages. Indeed, there is nothing more vital to man than for him to know how he is to be saved, by whom he is to be saved, and in what manner he is to be saved. Can there possibly be a question of greater moment for those who inhabit the earth?
Now, it is quite certain that when we proclaim today that there is "no salvation outside the Church," many Catholics rise up incredulously and affirm that this is nonsense, that otherwise those not in the Church must be condemned to hell. The fact is, however, that this remains a crucial tenet of interest to all mankind. As Catholics we are bound to affirm what the Church has always affirmed, because the Church is the repository of all truth: God made man and the Son of God was made man to be crucified for the salvation of all men. Can there possibly be any other source of salvation outside of the Son of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ? Can we as Catholics accept that Luther, Buddha or Mohammed are also means of eternal salvation? Are they also in heaven seated at the right hand of God? Yet today, despite the absurdity, many Catholics no longer accept that there is "no salvation outside the Church."
Protestants or Buddhists who achieve their salvation through an act of love for God - in effect, implicitly a baptism of desire - do so through Christ and His Church. The Church teaches that no man is saved except through Our Lord Jesus Christ. This, as Catholics, is what we must believe, for it is what the Church has always taught. There is no other God, no other truth, no other salvation but Christ Jesus. This is the center, the foundation, the goal of our Christian life, and it will one day be the crowning glory of our Christian life. There is nothing, in a word, outside of Christ Jesus who is our only joy on earth and in heaven.
You understand, I am sure, how important it is to affirm these truths. Jesus Himself, and not ourselves, chose the means for us to receive His Grace. The means He chose was the Cross -, and He chose that the Cross - and His Sacrifice upon it be continued on earth upon our altars. There is no other place but upon our altars that Christ's Calvary is continued in this world. Catholics in every age have understood the enormity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Our ancestors most certainly understood it, our ancestors who built the worthy church buildings, which adorn your country, and the extraordinary cathedrals and basilicas of Europe. Visitors the world over come to these shrines to stand in awe before the splendor of the labor and genius of our ancestors of a thousand years ago. Why did they erect such monuments, expending decade upon decade of their fragile lives to bringing forth these magnificent cathedrals? For the sake of the altar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and for the sake of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is celebrated upon it. And it was Christ Himself who wished it.
Jesus Christ instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper on the occasion of the first sacrifice - for the Last Supper was indeed a Sacrifice, as the Council of Trent teaches - when He made priests of His Apostles and enjoined them, "Do this in memory of Me." He did not say, "Tell this story, describe this action of Mine to your children and to future generations." He said rather, "Do this, re-do this, continue to do this which I have done." It is very important that we realize the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an action and not a narrative, not a story. I am sure you must realize why I am emphasizing: it is precisely because in our time Christ's intentions are being subverted, contradicted and suppressed.
It is vital, therefore, that we insist upon what is essential to our Holy Faith and indeed to the very idea of Christian civilization, in which we have good reason to glory still, and which we hope with all our hearts to regain and to see revitalized as it was in medieval times. The world chuckles today about the Middle Ages. Modem man tells us it was an age of obscurity - the dark ages - but history itself tells us the medieval age was the greatest age in history, and the thirteenth the greatest century that mankind has ever known. Why? Because of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and because of the spirituality generated by the Mass. Today, more than ever before, our civilization needs its altars, needs it priests to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which in fact is a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of the Cross. The whole of our Christian civilization rest upon our altars. But if we destroy our altars and replace them with a table, and upon this table we simply prepare a meal which is but a memorial of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Last Supper, which is but a narrative of what He said and did on that occasion, then we have forfeited the basis upon which Christian civilization rests. The Catholic Church then ceases to exist, for the Church rests upon the dogma, upon the reality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, whence comes Holy Communion, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. For Holy Communion - the Eucharist - transforms our very souls, civilizes us, disciplines us and imposes order upon our souls. Without the Eucharist we reek of disorder.
We frequently wonder why there are so few priests today. It is because there is no longer any preoccupation with the Sacrifice of the Mass. There is no more ideal, no more goal for the priest to pursue, His goal had always been to go unto the Altar of God to offer the Sacrifice of Calvary. That is precisely what made the sublimity of the priest, the ideal of the priestly vocation in a young man. Similarly, for the religious - nuns and brothers - the foundation of their vocation was the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, just as it was for you, the laity.
What, then, precisely is a Christian? Essentially, a Christian is one who offers himself as a victim on the altar with Our Lord. That is what the Sacrament of Marriage is also: a symbol of Christ's union with His Church. Just as Christ offered His life for His Church, so also do the spouses offer their lives for their families and for each other. This union is a vivid symbol of what occurred at Calvary, and thus the spouses derive the strength and courage required for the sacrifice of their union from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass there can be no Catholic spirituality, no Christian life, and all that has been the life of the Church through the ages will simply wither and cease to exist. We, then, do have a vital requirement for the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and this is of fundamental importance to us as Catholics.
I do allow that in recent centuries perhaps our catechetics have placed more emphasis upon the Eucharist as sacrament, than upon the Eucharist as sacrifice. There has been great emphasis placed on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and for good reason, of course. We stage, for example, massive international Eucharistic Congresses throughout the Catholic world to provide the faithful with the opportunity to adore Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. And these Eucharistic Congresses were of unsurpassed splendor, living testimony of the profound belief of the faithful in the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Thus, while the Church has in recent centuries placed much emphasis upon the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist - the Eucharist as Sacrament - at the same time, perhaps unconsciously, the Eucharist as Sacrifice has to some extent been neglected. Let us come back to this idea of the Eucharist as Sacrifice, without losing sight of the Eucharist as Sacrament. I do think that today there ought to be a renewed emphasis on the Eucharist as Sacrifice because, after all, it is the Eucharist as Sacrifice, which is the source of the Eucharist as Sacrament. The Eucharist as Sacrament comes to us from the Sacrifice of the Cross. Without the Cross there would be no Sacrament of the Eucharist because the Sacrament is the Victim, and without the Sacrifice there is no Victim. And without the Victim there is no Real Presence, no participation, no communion by the faithful. In a word, when we receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist - Holy Communion - we are partaking of the Victim Who offered Himself on the Cross, and Who offers Himself in an unbloody manner daily on our altars for the forgiveness of sins. This, then, is the profound meaning of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist: the Blessed Sacrament is the fruit of this extraordinary tree which is the Cross because the Sacrament proceeds from the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
We must therefore come back to this idea of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is essential to our salvation, and see in this Sacrifice precisely that element which has been the splendor of our civilization, and to understand why, today, this civilization - Western civilization, Christian civilization - is shaken to its very foundations, how the decline of our Christian civilization began when we came to express doubts about the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, when we began to attack, abolish and suppress the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This incredible phenomenon traces its origins to Berenger in the fourteenth century. Then in the sixteenth century, Luther boldly declared that the Mass is not a Sacrifice. Luther's attack, therefore, was directed at the very heart of the Church, to its most precious dogma. And in thus undermining the Sacrifice of the Mass, he destroyed the priesthood instituted by Christ, because without the Sacrifice, what need is there for a priesthood, what ideal does the priest strive for? The priest becomes merely a functionary designed from among the members of an assembly to offer worship, to perform a communion, to break bread.
That is what Luther achieved 450 years ago, and, as those familiar with the history of his reformation will recognize, that is precisely what is happening with respect to the transformation of the liturgy in our own time. Many of the elements of change are identical. During Luther's reformation the vernacular, German, was adopted and, needless to say, there was great rejoicing: the youth became enthusiastic, the laity could now understand, they could return now to what appeared to be a more evangelical church, they could worship now more meaningfully. The laity, in a word, had discovered a new relevance in the life of the Church. But the euphoria of juvenile enthusiasm soon gave way to disillusion: the priesthood began to disintegrate, priests and nuns left their monasteries, the convents were emptied and the religious married. How could this be so soon after the fervor and enthusiasm of the early years? The whole phenomenon was but a straw fire because the reformers had attacked the essential elements of Christ's Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
With the Sacrifice attacked, the traditional respect for the Eucharist did not remain long immune. The faithful began to receive Communion standing, then Communion was distributed in the hand, then the reformers began to openly deny the Real Presence, the Supreme Sacrifice, and to deny the priesthood, all that the Church had cherished most dearly.
The Protestant Reformation struck our civilization at its very roots, and it was just a matter of time before the tenets of Liberalism were added to those of the religious reformation. Thus, in the seventeenth century, Descartes brought forward the notion of truth being relative, subjective, within ourselves. That is, truth comes from our consciences, and not from outside of ourselves. Descartes refused the notion of truth, which comes from God and from Christ. And in the eighteenth century, Rousseau, carrying Descartes a step further, directed his attack at the moral law: man is good, his conscience is good. Therefore, it is his conscience, which should guide him, and not the law.
These three - Luther who attacked Church dogma and the Faith, Descartes who attacked the concept of objective truth, and Rousseau who attacked the moral law - were the precursors of the modern society in which we live today. Today, as we all recognize, faith, truth and the law are all relative and subject to the conscience of the individual. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what Liberalism is all about. Man has become free, liberated, adult, guided now exclusively by his own conscience and by his own will.
What in reality has all this liberation meant for society, for our civilization? It has brought about the destruction of the human person whose very being comes from God and from Our Lord Jesus Christ, whose entire spiritual life comes from Christ, from His law of love, from the gift of His grace which transforms and moves him to adhere to His law. If there is no absolute truth, but rather our own which we create for ourselves, there is no more God, no need for God, because we are sufficient unto ourselves. We become in effect our own gods and accordingly refuse a God, which transcends ourselves. It is not long before nature destroys itself in a sense.
In the wake of Rousseau came the subjectivist philosophers of the nineteenth century: Kant, Hegel and the others, all contributing and advancing the destruction of the Christian Faith. Little by little these ideas made their way until the principles of Liberalism virtually destroyed the notion of Christian society. Already by the end of the eighteenth century it had become imperative in France to be liberated from the restrictions of Christian law, of Catholic kings, of Catholic society, in a word, of God. That is why in France, bankrupt of God, the Goddess Reason was formally consecrated by the State.
The Church, of course, resisted these tendencies. For a century and a half - from about 1800 to about 1960 - the Popes spoke out, issued encyclicals, used every conceivable means to prevent the destruction of the social and moral order by these tendencies. But these ideas, which had their origins in the Protestant Reformation and the advent of Liberalism, made their way little by little, and society became contaminated, and the dikes which hitherto had kept men in an ordered state, burst. Finally, like the Jews before Pontius Pilate, the states declared, "We have no king but Caesar," and accordingly effected the separation of Church and State. They drove Jesus Christ from the courts, from the army, from the universities, from the schools. The crucifixes were withdrawn from public buildings, the clergy were relegated to their vestries, society was laicized.
Society had thus become free, free of God. There soon followed freedom of thought, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience. And now, a century and a half later, we find ourselves enslaved by pornography, enslaved by television and the other media of social communications, which have so thoroughly infused into our society the kind of freedom, which destroys morality, the family, and society itself.
For her part, until about 1960, the Church resolutely resisted Liberalism in all these forms. She continued to teach obedience and submission to Jesus Christ, to His Law, to His Sacrifice, to His Sacraments and to His grace. For it is there that we find truth, true freedom, freedom from the slavery of sin. Once free of sin, we become enslaved rather to saintliness.
We see to what brutal depths our society has been reduced. The catechisms, the Canadian catechism, is a perfect example of the process I have tried at some length to describe, to destroy, an entire catechism devoted to destruction. Catechism by its nature suggests a breaking with sin, but modern catechisms are directed towards breaking down tradition and social taboos, breaking the family, destroying the restraints, which have held our civilization together. These are the things your children are taught in catechism today. Do the Gospels teach us that we must destroy? On the contrary, the Gospels teach us rather that we are to forge bonds of charity, of love: love God, love your parents, love your neighbor. These are strong bonds, mandatory bonds. We are not free to love or not to love. We must love God, and our parents and society, to the extent, of course, that society is in accord with God' s law.
This concept to teach our children to destroy, to break is a criminal concept because such notions will accompany them throughout their lives: through their youth and later when, by a sort of dialectic which will continue to gnaw at them and will always oppose them to others and consume them with the imperative to be "free" in order to grow, in order to be "themselves." This is fraught with extremely serious consequences and we wonder now how we could even imagine such a system of catechism. The new catechetics are simply a natural long-term consequence of Liberalism.
And though our Popes opposed Liberalism and recognized it for what it is, today nevertheless one can safely affirm that Liberalism has overwhelmed the Church. It has permeated our culture, our society, our universities and our schools. No area remains immune, not even our families have been spared the poison of Liberalism. Our seminaries have been contaminated by ideas proposed by such men as Teilhard de Chardin, whereby truth is relative, evolving, personal. There is no longer an immutable truth, therefore no fixed dogma. And this, tragically, is what has come out of Vatican II. Gaudium et spes best illustrates this: at least two pages are devoted to, the idea of change, to the evolution of truth. Change is what "updating" is all about. Anyone who is a party to "updating" faces that as a premise: as a result of our new found mastery of nature, we must accept change in philosophy, in modes of expression and action, in the manner in which we conceive our religion, in the realization that the way ideas were understood in the past are no longer applicable today.
Thus, seminaries, for example, are told they must no longer proselytize, evangelize or convert non-Christians. They must, rather, engage in dialogue in order to direct their flocks toward self-discovery and the realization that their faith is, after all, as valid as our own. This, of course, is heresy, pure and simple, and has had the predictable effect of numbing in a very short time the Church's entire missionary spirit. It goes without saying that, having killed the missionary spirit, the priestly spirit itself will cease to exist.
These are the factors, then, which leave Catholics with no incentive for the religious life today. People no longer know what the religious state of life is. Recently the Archbishop of Cincinnati, reporting to the Roman Synod on the crisis of vocations to the priesthood, solemnly declared that the lack of vocations apparent in the Church today stems from the fact that the priest has lost his sense of identity. What do these incredible words mean? Simply that the priest does not know what he is. Since when does the priest not know who or what he is? After 2,000 years of having priests in the Catholic Church we suddenly no longer know what constitutes a priest! Why have we come to this? Because we have destroyed our altars by changing them into "tables," stripped them of their altar stones, which from the fourth century have harbored the relics of the martyrs. A sacrifice is traditionally offered upon a stone, a stone altar, but today there is no sacrifice, no stone, no relics. The Mass has become a meal. Relics signify that the martyrs had offered themselves as a sacrifice in union with Our Lord. You can understand just how grave it is to abolish these magnificent symbolisms, and to what extent all that is most sacred in the holy Catholic religion, is being tampered with. And all of this tampering penetrated the Church at the Second Vatican Council.
I am frequently criticized because I attack the Council. It is true that I am at variance with the Council because I realize that the liberal spirit is destroying the Church, the priesthood, the sacraments, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the catechism, Catholic universities and Catholic schools. And you yourselves are as firmly convinced as I am because you have the examples constantly before your eyes. Parents have come to prefer to send their children to non-Catholic schools, even to Protestant schools, because they are less subject there to perversion than in their own Catholic schools.
Is this not an incomprehensible scandal when we reflect on what Canada was twenty years ago at the proud invitation of Msgr. Cabana to visit his new seminary, finished in 1955, full of seminarians. This remained so until 1965. Today the seminary has been sold and there remains nothing of this work. What is happening in the Church the world over when seminaries like the one in Sherbrooke, not twenty years old, are disposed of in this way?
Recently I spoke with an Italian bishop who had just returned from a trip during which he had hoped to come into contact with priests anxious to maintain traditions of the Church to establish a common bond, to perhaps create an association of traditional priests in Italy. He had returned overwhelmed. Having visited nearly every diocese in Italy, he realized that seminaries are being sold everywhere, and that young priests are out and out Marxists. Though Italy has an average three times more priests than France, the seminaries are empty; Turin with a capacity for 300 has 80 seminarians from several neighboring dioceses. The Bishop of Casserta confided to me that his seminarians come back to him Modernists and refuse to obey him. What kind of diocese is he going to have in just a few years from now in the light of the state of the priesthood and the seminaries today?
In France there are approximately 100 new candidates who enter all the seminaries each year, for 100 dioceses. The only notable seminary left is at Issy-les-Moulinaux, near Paris, with 80 seminarians for 25 dioceses and four or five religious communities. And of these, how many will finish? And how many more are living in the hope that between now and their ordination Rome will have authorized a married clergy?
This situation, which took root at the Council, is vitally serious. The enthusiasm for liberation was evident throughout the Council. It expressed itself in the equivocal wording of the various schemas, through the idea of change for the sake of change, through the idea of the primacy of the individual conscience as opposed to established law, through the notion of freedom for all religions. This the Church has always regarded as contrary to her rights because, as she believes, she alone is Truth. And if a Catholic state places no obstacle to the spreading of heresy within its jurisdiction, then the state becomes a Protestant state in effect, with all its attendant errors, on marriage, for example, which leads to tolerance for divorce, contraception and abortion, all of which gently undermines Christian society, Catholic society. We recognize that it is precisely this, which has set the Church upon a course of full-scale self-destruction, which has become more and more obvious.
These, then, are the reasons why we are so attached to our traditions. This is why, in the face of the deluge, this universal destruction of the Holy Catholic Church, we affirm the will to preserve the Catholic Mass, the Catholic Sacraments, the Catholic catechism, our Catholic universities and our Catholic schools. We refuse to maintain liberal schools in which everything and anything goes. We insist upon Catholic schools in order that our children be raised as Catholics. We insist upon Catholic universities in order that our children not be perverted. We no longer dare send a young man or a young lady to a Catholic university.
We prefer to send them to a state university. Seminarians no longer know where to go. In seminaries today, seminarians come and go as they pleased, at any time of the day and night, go to daily Mass or stay away, as they please.
We are thus in a state of decomposition and we cannot accept this situation. This is why our resistance gives the impression that we are attempting to stand in the way of all this change. I have been requested to close my seminary at Econe. Why do I refuse to obey this order? Because I most emphatically do not wish my seminarians to become Protestants, because I do not wish my seminarians to become Modernists, because I do not wish my seminarians to lose their faith and their moral perspective. I am quite certain that were they to be released and sent to other seminaries they would lose their faith and their moral perspective. Accordingly, it appears to me that I have no choice but to resist this order.
I am asked how it is that I can refuse orders, which come from Rome. Indeed, these orders to come from Rome, but from which Rome? I believe in Eternal Rome, the Rome of the Sovereign Pontiffs, the Rome which dispenses the very life of the Church, the Rome which transmits the true Tradition of the Church. I am considered disobedient, but I am moved to ask why have those who issue orders which in themselves are blameworthy been given their authority. The Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the priests have been given their authority for the purpose of transmitting life, the spiritual life, the supernatural life, eternal life, just as parents and society as a whole have been given their authority to transmit and protect life. The word "authority" means "author," author of life. We are not authorized to transmit death; society is not permitted to pass laws, which authorize abortion, because abortion is death. In like manner, the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops and priests exist as such to transmit and sustain spiritual life. Unfortunately, it is apparent that many of them today no longer transmit or sustain life, but rather authorize spiritual abortion.
These, then, are the reasons why, in the face of an order to close my seminary, I refuse to obey. I believe that we all have a serious requirement for the type of priests who transmit the life of the soul. I am certain you do not wish to have priests who are apt to administer sacraments, which are invalid. From time to time I am asked to administer Confirmation which, of course, is irritating to local bishops who remind me that I have no right to confirm in their dioceses. Naturally, I recognize this, but I remind them in turn that they have no right to administer sacraments of doubtful validity to children whose parents want them to receive the sacramental grace. These parents have the right to be certain that their children are receiving the grace of Confirmation. This is, after all, a grave responsibility for parents. It is grace, which keeps the soul alive, and, to this end, I much prefer to see parents confident that their children have received the sacramental grace of Confirmation even when, by administering the sacrament in someone else's diocese, I am acting illicitly. I may at least rest easy in the knowledge that the children confirmed in the manner prescribed by the Church for centuries truly carry the sacramental grace within them, that the sacrament is truly valid.
With respect to sacraments of doubtful validity, today bishops rarely confirm: they delegate their vicars-general or other priests, and many of these change even the new authorized formulas. Because the particular sacramental grace of each sacrament has to be signified explicitly, and as many of these changes of working do not signify the sacrament in question, it follows that the sacrament is invalid. In other words, it is not permissible to toy with the formula of the sacraments, just as in the Sacrifice of the Mass we many not tamper with the wording of the consecration. It is necessary to perform as the Church has always intended.
All of this, therefore, is of utmost importance and it is also the reason why we must maintain our traditions, and fear neither difficulties nor obstructions. We are living in a time of veritable agony. We must be careful, of course, not to offer violent opposition to our bishops and to our priests who refuse to understand the grave dangers under which the Church labors today. But in following the Church of all time, we must also pray for our pastors. We are not inventing anything new. I have not innovated at my seminary at Econe.
Those who condemn me are condemning their own formation, which is absurd. In the face of these absurdities, I can only close my ears and my eyes, and continue to receive seminarians. In September [1975], I welcomed twenty-five new candidates at Econe, five at my new German-language seminary near Lake Constance in German Switzerland, and twelve at my new house at Armada, Michigan. Vocations are surely not wanting and I am quite certain that were we encouraged instead of harassed and struck down, I would have not three seminaries, but seminaries in every part of the world. Make no mistake: there are sufficient good, young, wiling men - good and holy vocations in every country.
We are bound, therefore, to pray that we recover one day an understanding of the way of the priesthood because Christian society cannot live without its priests. The Church without the priesthood is no longer the Church. It is for this reason essentially that I ask your fervent prayers for young priests. Pray also to the Blessed Virgin Mary, for she is the Mother of priests and the Mother of the priesthood. Pray for the graces of holy vocations, and for assistance with respect to Rome, that one-day Rome itself may be enlightened.
Rome, for me, has become a great mystery. What is happening in Rome? It is surely Rome that constitutes the most serious problem. To say such a thing is neither calumny nor detraction, for if the crisis in the Church has spread to every country in the world, it is only sensible to seek a common cause at its Seat. There is something distinctly abnormal and sinister about Rome today, the workings of grace are being obstructed in Rome, there are men in Rome who are under the ascendancy of Satan. How else could the Church be strangled, as it were, and troubled to such an extent? Though we may not readily understand the problem, one can feel it, sense the atmosphere of today's Rome. I am still frequently in Rome, and I have occasion to chat from time to time to priests of the different sacred congregations, the men who carry out the day-to-day affairs of the Curia. These men confide to me in private that Rome has become stifling, that a veritable terror reigns in the bureaus and the corridors of the Vatican, with always somebody listening, spying, ready to report, to criticize. Even the cardinals are not immune to the terror, to the veritable diabolical influence, which permeates every facet of Vatican life.
What has caused such a deterioration? Who are these sinister people? Are they hidden personalities, or are they clerics in important positions? Nobody seems to know, but what is absolutely certain is that this spirit permeates not only the Seat of the Catholic Church, but every one of us no matter how far we are from Rome.
The present state of Rome is just one more reason why we must not hesitate or fear to regroup.
In closing, I would wish to emphasize especially how important it is to remain united, and to avoid dissension at all costs. We are already so few who wish to hold onto our traditions, who understand, who have received the graces. There can be no question but that it is God's grace, which has allowed us to keep our holy traditions, the very traditions, which have produced the saints. It is vital, therefore, that we proceed as of one mind, that we labor together in order to better insure a strong defense.
You most assuredly have it within your power, through grace, to build up something solid, which will last, which will attract the others, something which will allow you to form your children. You will find it easier to provide catechists to help you in your tasks. You will find it easier to organize your own schools, administered by laymen and fully Catholic, teaching the true catechism, celebrating the traditional liturgy, forming your children as strong and perfect Christians. It is this sort of arrangement to which we must come in order to protect our holy religion and our souls, for, ultimately, to save our souls is all that matters.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1978 'Reign of Scandal' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:36 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre - Given on the Feast of Christ the King - October 29,1978
On the Occasion of the Ordination of 28 Deacons
In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
My dear friends and my dear brethren:
As each year, on this Feast of Christ the King, we have the joy of conferring ordination to the diaconate on some of the seminarians, and this year this joy is particularly great because by the grace of God they are numerous, and in addition there are the subdeacons who have come from Bedoin and also those of the Fraternity of the Transfiguration. We are very happy to see to it that the diaconate, which bears so many graces for those who are going to receive it, may always extend itself for the greater good of souls.
My dear friends: In a few moments you are therefore going to receive Spiritum Sanctum ad robur, the Holy Ghost with the gift of fortitude in particular. You are going to receive the Holy Ghost in order to fulfill your office; that is what the bishop is going to say in the middle of the preface by the sacramental formula. A character more profound and still more significant of Holy Orders is going to mark your souls; before God, before the Church, before all of the holy angels, before the entire celestial court you shall be henceforth deacons for eternity! And if one judges according to the monitions which are give by the bishop to the (sub) deacons before conferring upon them the diaconate, one sees that this function is very important.
The function of the deacon, says the monition, is to serve at the altar, to baptise and to preach: Servire ad altare, baptizare et praedicare.
To serve at the altar; but to serve at the altar in a manner which is closely related to that of the priest. Henceforth, the deacon will be able to carry the sacred vessels which contain the Blessed Sacrament. Henceforth, even though it be only in an extraordinary manner, he will be able to distribute the Holy Eucharist. He approaches therefore in a very close manner these holy mysteries, these great mysteries of our holy religion: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Holy Eucharist-the great sacrament in the radiance of which the priest must live and in the radiance of which you, my dear friends, must live in an intensified manner.
To serve at the altar, to baptise and to preach. The Church, in the monition which she demands the bishop to pronounce before the ordination, gives you Saint Stephen as an example, an admirable example. This deacon, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, had been chosen because he was filled with the grace of the Holy Ghost— plenus gratia et Spiritus Sanctus. And a bit further in these same Acts of the Apostles— Plenus gratia et fortitudine. If there is an example which you must follow, an example and a model, it is certainly this Saint Stephen, since he is given to you particularly by the Church. Indeed, Saint Stephen, filled with the grace of the Holy Ghost, preached. The Acts of the Apostles show in a striking manner, in a manifest manner to what point the listeners of his preaching were stupefied—and they saw him as an angel from heaven. He was radiating the splendor of eternity and in spite of this, his judges did not wish to accept his words and they did not wish to receive his preaching. Thus, in terminating his objurgations, Saint Stephen, with force, made them understand that they were no different from the others who had preceded them and who had killed the prophets. "The prophets who announced the coming of the Just, your fathers have killed; and you are similar to them for you have killed the Just Himself." And upon hearing these words of St. Stephen the Acts of the Apostles say that their rage was at its height and that "they gnashed their teeth"— these are the terms of Sacred Scripture itself—and "they rushed upon Saint Stephen in order to stone him."
Thus, my dear friends, I believe this is an admirable example for you today, in particular, on the Feast of Christ the King. You must have this contemplation, this vision in a certain sense, of the royalty of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as St. Stephen saw it in heaven. Our Lord present in heaven, the King of Heaven and not only the King of Heaven but, as well, King of the Earth. This is why St. Stephen did not fear to speak with force of the royalty of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the duty to obey Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is what the Scribes and the Pharisees, who had Our Lord put to death, refused and this is why they stoned Saint Stephen, indeed you also with the grace of God are going to become priests and exercise in a manner even more complete during your priesthood, your function of deacon. But already before receiving the priesthood you will be able to preach when the occasion presents itself and you must prepare yourself for this.
In this preaching, you will preach the royalty of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for it is not of other things that the priest has to preach.
You will preach this royalty first of all by prayer, through the example of piety, by the love of the altar, and by the love of the Holy Sacrifice to which you will henceforth be attached forever. You will manifest this attachment to the sacrifice of Our Lord by respect for sacred things, in order to encourage the faithful to respect them also, and to understand that these great mysteries are the source of our sanctification. You will pray therefore for it is through prayer and sacrifice that Our Lord saved the world, and you will not save it other than by prayer and your sacrifice. You will preach Our Lord Jesus Christ and His royalty by the example of your virtue, by your priestly dress, by your attitude, by your goodness, by your charity, by your zeal, in your conversations on all the occasions that you will have to approach the faithful and unbelievers; you will preach Our Lord Jesus Christ. And God knows that today the world has need of this preaching! St. Francis of Assisi in taking Brother Leo with him in the streets of Assisi said to him, "Let us go preach Our Lord Jesus Christ," and Brother Leo accompanied him. After having traversed the streets of Assisi, St. Francis, not having pronounced a word, was asked by Brother Leo, "But how have we preached Our Lord Jesus Christ?" "By our example and by our habit we have preached Our Lord Jesus Christ," and the world has need of this example, and the world has need of this preaching.
You will also preach Our Lord Jesus Christ by your words. We must establish His reign for He has commanded that we do so. Our Lord, in sending the seventy-two disciples to preach the Gospel did not speak of other things. Go! Preach the reign of God! The reign of God — Regnum Dei. This reign of God is HIS reign for He is God. He is Our God. We have no other God but Our Lord Jesus Christ! It is therefore the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ which His disciples preached. It is also the reign of God that Our Lord preached during the forty days which followed His Resurrection before His Ascension; it is the Gospel which says so: "He conversed with the Apostles of the reign of God." It is thus the reign of God which preoccupied Our Lord; definitively His own reign. Thus, as Our Lord was preoccupied with this reign we are also, who are His disciples. We must always be preoccupied with the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ: the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ for ourselves, the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ for individuals, for persons, the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ for families, the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ in societies.
But you will not forget that opposed to the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ there is the reign of Satan. The reign of Satan has never perhaps been more extensive and penetrated everywhere into all domains as it has today. It surrounds us on all sides. What is the reign of Satan? The reign of Satan is the reign of scandal but scandal understood in its true sense understood in the sense of that which leads us to sin and, as a consequence, which leads us to HELL. That is scandal! Scandal is that which leads to sin, that which draws one into sin and indeed the reign of scandal is to be found in this world. Much is scandal around us, much is contrary to the law of God. Henceforth, in society, even the commandments of God are not only ignored but they are publicly and officially attacked. Laws are passed which are contrary to the law of God. All of this is legalized, officialized; the magistrates, the doctors are obliged to do some things which are contrary to the law of God, which are unjust, which are horrible, abominable! All of this in a time when one believes that our civilization has never been as great or as beautiful! On the contrary! This civilization bears the mark of SATAN and it bears the mark of HELL!
You will denounce these scandals in order to prevent them from leading souls to hell. You will not be afraid to denounce all that which drags souk into sin.
In order to have this courage and this force, you will ask these graces particularly of the Blessed Virgin Mary. You know, my dear friends, Mary is our Mediatrix Mother. She is the Mediatrix of all graces. The grace which you are going to receive in just a few moments by the imposition of the hand of the bishop and by the sacramental words which are going to be pronounced over you, this grace of the Holy Ghost is going to be given to you by the intercession of our good mother in heaven. Ask Mary. Ask her—your mother, to give you this grace in abundance that you may truly be deacons according to her heart, that later on you may be priests according to her heart as was her Divine Son. She will aid you to be ape sties of the Kingdom of Our Lord and of the Reign of God.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1977 Three Great Gifts of God |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:34 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
The Archbishop Speaks
Three Great Gifts of God
THE PAPACY
THE BLESSED VIRGIN
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE
Pronounced at Ecône by His Excellency, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on September 18, 1977
The 30th Anniversary of his Consecration as Bishop
My dear brothers, my dear friends,
It is kind of Providence that this day of return to the Seminary should coincide with the anniversary of my episcopal consecration which took place on September 18, 1947 in my native city. At the request of friends we are celebrating this anniversary in a special way.
In the breviary this morning we read the lesson of Tobias. It was said that the young Tobias, finding himself surrounded by the men of his race, the Jews, adoring a golden calf which had been set up by the King of Israel himself, went faithfully to the temple to offer the sacrifices God had demanded. He was thus faithful to the law of God.
Well, we hope that we too have been faithful to God, faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ. Later on Tobias was among the prisoners sent to Niniva and there, the Scripture says, while all his compatriots did homage to the pagan cult, he continued to hold to the truth, retinuit omnem veritatem. He held to the whole truth. I believe this is the lesson Holy Scripture has for us and I hope that we, too, remain faithful like Tobias did, both in his youth and in his captivity. Is it not true that we today are in a certain sense in captivity, restraint surrounding us on all sides, imposed on us by those who bow to error both in the world and inside the Church itself? By those who juggle with the truth and who keep truth hidden instead of proclaiming it; We are in a world enslaved by the Devil, enslaved by error.
But it is our wish to hold to truth. We want to continue to proclaim it. What then, is this truth? Do we have a monopoly on it? Are we so presumptuous as to say we have the truth, others do not? No, truth does not belong to us. It does not come from us, it was not invented by us. This truth was transmitted to us, it was given us. It is written. It is living in the Church and in the whole history of the Church. This truth is known. It is in the books, in the catechisms, in all the acts of the councils, in all the acts of the sovereign pontiffs. It is in our Creed, in our Ten Commandments, in the gifts that God has made to us, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. It is not we who invented this truth. We have only to persevere in it.
Because truth has an eternal character. The truth we profess is God, Our Lord Jesus Christ who is God and God does not change. God remains immutable. It was St. Paul who said, vicissitudinis obumbratio. There is not a shadow of vicissitude in Him, not the shadow of changeability. God is unalterable, semper idem, always the same. Certainly He is the source of everything that changes but He, Himself, is unalterable, unchangeable. And by the fact that we profess God as truth we will enter in some way into eternity through truth. We have no right to change that truth. Indeed it cannot be changed. It will never change.
Men have been put on earth to receive a little of that light of eternity as it descends on them. They become in some way eternal, they too, immortal, according to the extent to which they attached themselves to the things that change, to moving things, they move away from God. And here it is that we feel a need. All men feel this need. They have in them an immortal soul which is already now in eternity, a soul which will be happy or unhappy, but it is a soul that exists. It will not die.
Every man who is born, who has a soul has entered into eternity. That is why we have need of eternal things, of the true eternity which is God. We cannot do without it. It is part of our lives. It is what is most essential to us. That is why men seek the truth, seek the eternal, because they have an essential need of eternity.
And what are the means by which Our Lord has given us eternity, communicated it to us, made eternity enter into our lives even here below? Often when I was going through the African countries on my diocesan visits I chose a them that was dear to me and very simple, too. You have heard it many times but for the simple people I spoke to it summed up the truth. Asking what are the gifts the Good God has given us which make us participants of the divine life, life eternal, I would answer: there are three great gifts which God has made us and they are the Pope, the Blessed Virgin and the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
THE PAPACY
IN reality it is an extraordinary gift that God has made us in giving us the Pope, in giving us the successors of Peter, giving us precisely this perpetuity in truth communicated to us through the successors of Peter, that must be communicated to us through them. And it seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in any way to transmit the truth that he is obliged to transmit. Indeed, without virtually disappearing from the line of succession he cannot fail to communicate that which the popes have always communicated, the Deposit of Faith which does not belong to him alone.
The Deposit of Faith does not belong to the Pope. It is the treasure of truth which has been taught during twenty centuries. He must transmit it faithfully and exactly to all those under him who are charged in turn to communicate the truth of the Gospel. He is not free.
But should it happen because of mysterious circumstances which we cannot understand, which baffle our imagination, which go beyond our conception, if it should happen that a pope, he who is seated on the throne of Peter, comes to obscure in some way the truth which it is his duty to transmit or if he does not transmit it faithfully or allows error to darken truth or hide it in any way, then we must pray to God with all our hearts, with all our soul, that light continues to be thrown on that which he is charged to transmit.
NEVER CAN THE TRINITY BE CHANGED.
NEVER CAN THE REDEMPTIVE WORK OF CHRIST THROUGH THE CROSS AND THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS BE CHANGED!
THESE THINGS ARE ETERNAL.
THEY BELONG TO GOD.
And we cannot follow error, change truth, just because the one who is charged with transmitting it is weak and allows error to spread around him. We don’t want the darkness to encroach on us. We want to live in the light of truth. We remain faithful to that which has been taught for two thousand years. That what has been taught for 2,000 years and which is part of eternity could change is inconceivable.
Because it is eternity which has been taught to us. It is the eternal God, Jesus Christ eternal God, and everything which is centered on God is centered on eternity. Never can the Trinity be changed. Never can the redemptive work of Christ through the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass be changed. These things are eternal. They belong to God. How can someone here below change those things? Who is the priest who feels he has the right to change those things, to modify them? Impossible!
When we possess the past we possess the present and we possess the future. Because it is impossible, I say metaphysically impossible, to separate the past from the present and future. Impossible! Then God would no longer be God! God would no longer be eternal! God would no longer be immutable. And there would be nothing more to believe in. We would be completely in error.
This is why, without worrying about all that is happening around us in these times we ought to close our eyes to the horror of this drama we are living through, close our eyes and affirm our Creed, our Ten Commandments, meditate on the Sermon on the Mount which is also our law. We must attach ourselves to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to the Sacraments awaiting the light that will shine around us again. That is all. We must do this without becoming bitter or violent in a spirit that is unfaithful to Our Lord. Let us stay charitable. Let us pray, suffer, accept all the trials, everything that happens, everything that God sends us. Let us do as Tobias did. Abandoned by everyone as they went to adore the golden calf of the gods of the pagans, he remained faithful. Still, he too could have thought that, since only he remained faithful it might be that he was mistaken. But no, he knew that whatever God had taught to his forebears could not change. The truth of God existed and could not change. And so it is with us. We too have to rely upon the truth that is God yesterday, today and tomorrow. Jesus Christus heri, hodie et in secula.
And that is why I say we must retain our confidence in the papacy. We must retain confidence in the successor of Peter in so far as he is the successor of Peter. But if it should happen that he were not perfectly faithful in his duties, then we must remain faithful to those who were the successors of Peter and not to him who is not the successor of Peter. That is all. His duty is to transmit the Deposit of the Faith.
THE BLESSED VIRGIN
The second gift is that of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She has never changed. Is it possible to imagine that the Blessed Virgin Mary could change in her attitude to the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, her divine Son, toward the Sacrifice of the Cross, toward the work of redemption? Is it possible to imagine that the Blessed Virgin Mary could change one iota of her faith, that she could have had doubts at some period of her life, that she could have thought herself mistaken? That she could have doubted the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, doubted the Blessed Trinity, she who was filled with the Holy Ghost? Impossible! Inconceivable!
Here below she was already in eternity. The Blessed Virgin Mary, through her faith, an unchangeable, profound faith, could not be disturbed in any way. That is evident. Do not let us be disturbed by the noises around us but keep faithful, faithful like the Blessed Virgin Mary. And I want to add to this subject of the Blessed Virgin Mary something which seems to me to be important for us at this time in which we live. Continuously we are told the Virgin says this or says that. The Virgin has appeared here, the Virgin has communicated this message to that person. Of course, we do not rule out the possibility that a word of the Blessed Virgin could be addressed to persons of her choice. That is evident. But considering the kind of period we are living through we must be suspicious. We must mistrust.
SHE IS PRESENT AT EVERY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
SHE CANNOT SEPARATE HERSELF FROM THE CROSS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
OUR DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN OUGHT TO BE PROFOUND, PERFECT.
The place of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the theology of the Church is, in my estimation, infinitely sufficient to make us love her above everyone after Our Lord Jesus Christ and that we should have toward her a devotion which is profound and continuous day after day. It is not necessary that we have constant recourse to messages about which we cannot be absolutely certain whether they come from the Blessed Virgin or not. I am not speaking of the apparitions which have been recognized by the Church. But we must be very careful when it comes to rumors that circulate everywhere today. All the time I am receiving people or communications which are said to be addressed to me from the Blessed Virgin or from Our Lord ‑ a message to be addressed to me from the Blessed Virgin or from Our Lord ‑ a message received here, another there. Whereas in fact we should hope the Blessed Virgin is with us every day.
And she is. We know that. She is with us. She is present at every Sacrifice of the Mass. She cannot separate herself from the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our devotion to the Blessed Virgin ought to be profound, perfect. But it ought not have to depend on private messages.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE
GOD, Jesus Christ, has given us Himself in the Eucharist. What more beautiful thing could He do? I often say to the seminarians: if the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X has a particular spirituality - and I do not really want it to have one although I do not criticize the founders of Orders like St. Ignatius, Sts. Dominic and Vincent de Paul whom I know wanted to give particular characters to their societies, characters without doubt willed by Providence at the moment they were founded ‑ I think that if there is a particular mark to our Society it is devotion to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
How our spirits, our hearts, our bodies are as if captivated by the great mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! And it is in proportion to how we deepen our understanding of the great mystery of the Sacrifice of the Mass that we understand the priesthood, the grandeur of the priesthood. Because it is intimately, I say metaphysically, bound up with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And this is of the greatest importance in these times.
We have need of this, my dear friends. You have need of being captured by this spirituality of the Mass. Not only the priests but also our religious, our brothers, our nuns, and all of the laity, all of you faithful here present. We must have for the Sacrifice of the Mass a devotion greater than ever before because it is the very foundation stone of our faith.
THE SEMINARY REMAINS A CATHOLIC SEMINARY. AND IF GOD GIVES ME LIFE THE SEMINARY WILL NOT CHANGE!
I WOULD DIE RATHER THAN CHANGE ANY PART OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE WHICH MUST BE TAUGHT IN THE SEMINARY.
I hardly dare cite for you an example, something that happened in Chile during the three days I spent there. Still, because the idea occurs to me, I will indeed tell you if only to show the point of degradation the concept of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has reached in the minds of some of the highest members of the hierarchy. During my stay in Chile a concelebration was televised. It was presided over by the Auxiliary Bishop of Santiago. I myself did not see the screening but it was described to me by many people who saw it. There were some 15 or 20 priests concelebrating with him. During the ceremony the Auxiliary Bishop explained to the faithful, that is, everyone who was looking at the television, that this was a meal and he saw no reason why one should not smoke during a meal. And he himself smoked during that concelebration!
That is how far things have reached! This is the sad state of degradation, of sacrilege a bishop can attain. It is unheard of, inconceivable! Penance must be done for years in reparation for such offenses, for such unimaginable scandal! It serves to show how far one can go when one no longer believes.
We must be attached to the Sacrifice of the Mass as to the apple of our eye; as we are attached to that which is dearest to us, that which is the most respected, the most holy, the most sacred, the most divine. That is the meaning of this Seminary.
They may criticize the Seminary in any way they like. And they do. The Seminary is this way, that way. They have decided this about it, that about it. But in fact they decide nothing, change nothing. The Seminary stays as it is. It continues to be what it is because that was why it was founded. The Seminary remains a Catholic seminary. And if God gives me life the Seminary will not change. I would die rather than change any part of the Catholic doctrine which must be taught in the Seminary. With the grace of God, come what may, we will not change. So let them say what they will. Let them say that the Seminary has a new direction, the Seminary is this way or that. It is the Devil who says such things in order to destroy the Seminary. Obviously he cannot tolerate Catholic priests who have the faith.
And then, one cannot avoid speaking about it, all around us here and there in every country but particularly in France, there are divisions among those who are trying to hold to the faith, a mixture of calumny, slander, exaggerated words, foolish expressions, unjustified suppositions. Let us ignore it all. Let us instead work well, doing the will of God according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, continuing like our predecessors and our ancestors, doing what the Council of Trent asked of us, bishops, who must continue the formation which has always been given to priests. If we do this we will be certain we are remaining faithful.
That is enough. Let us remain calm. Let us remain faithful. And if it should ever come to be that the faith is not taught here, then leave me. If, my dear seminarians, I do not teach you Catholic truth, then leave! Do not stay here. That is your duty. But if I teach the Catholic Faith ‑ and you have the whole library at your disposal to find out whether or not what was handed to us is being handed down to you ‑ then, be confident. And we will do everything so that the Catholic Faith continues to be taught here, taught in its entirety so that you can, you too, carry on that truth that is so full of grace and life. Truth is the source of life. We have need of that life. The faithful are hungry for it. Why is it we have requests for priests from all sides? Because the faithful are thirsty for truth, thirsty for the grace of God, for the supernatural life, thirsty for that eternity toward which we are heading.
Therefore, have confidence in doing what the Church has always done - not confidence in Msgr. Lefebvre. I am a poor man like the others. I have no pretention to be better than others. On the contrary, I do not know why God has permitted me to have 30 years in the episcopate. I think that if I were to judge things on the human plane I would have preferred to remain a missionary in the jungles of Gabon; in isolation I would not have had all the problems I have had in my 30 years in the episcopate. But God has wanted it this way. He continues to try us. Very well, if that is His will so it must be and we must continue to carry the cross. It is not because He imposes crosses that we may abandon Him. On the contrary, we may not abandon Our Lord. We must follow Him.
And so, my dear friends, be faithful ‑ faithful to the Pope, successor of Peter when he shows himself to be truly the successor of Peter. Because that is what a pope is and it is in this sense we have need of him. We are not the people who want to break with the authority of the Church, with the successor of Peter. But neither are we people who want to break with twenty centuries of tradition in the Church, with twenty centuries of successors of Peter!
We have made our choice. We have chosen to be obedient in the real sense, obedient to what all the Popes have taught for 20 centuries and we cannot imagine that he who sits on Peter’s throne does not want to teach these things. Well, if that is the case then God will judge him. But we cannot go into error because there is a kind of rupture in the chain of the successors of Peter. We want to remain faithful to the successors of Peter who transmitted to us the Deposit of the Faith. It is in this sense that we are faithful to the Catholic Church, that we remain within it and can never go into schism. Since we are attached to twenty centuries of Faith we cannot make a schism. That is what guarantees for us the past, the present and the future. It is impossible to separate the past from the present and the future. Sustaining ourselves with the past we are sure of the present and the future.
So have confidence! Ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to help us under all circumstances. She is as strong as an army arrayed for battle. She who suffered as Queen of Martyrs at the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And will we not follow Our Blessed Mother and with her be ready to suffer martyrdom so that the work of redemption can continue?
|
|
|
|
| Article by Archbishop Lefebvre in II Gionale di Bergamo in 1978 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:31 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- Replies (1)
|
|
This article, signed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, appeared in II Gionale di Bergamo on the day of the ordinations at Ecône
29 June 1978
On this Feastday of the holy Saints Peter and Paul we are going to ordain sixteen seminarians of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X and confer the major orders of the subdiaconate on another twenty-one seminarians whose formation we are constantly following at the Seminary of Ecône. The ceremony will not be postponed although we were asked to do so in a letter given us by the Nuncio in Berne in the name of Cardinal Seper.
In conferring Holy Orders we are reminded of the last exhortation of the risen Christ to the Apostles about the Kingdom of God. Peter himself, shortly after Pentecost, was warned by Caiphas not to act in the name of Jesus but he disregarded the ban expressed by the highest religious authority of the time and he told the first three thousand baptized that the Kingdom of God is kept by “persevering in the doctrine, in the fractione panis (the Mass) and in prayer.”
All the activity of the International Seminary of Ecône is contained in these three exhortations. The doctrine is not considered a philosophy resulting from studies which must be perfected, as some would have it nowadays, but a deposit given by Christ to the Church which must be faithfully preserved and whose sense may not be modified by human intelligence. The Holy Mass, the center of all the spirituality of the Ecône seminarians, is the daily renewal of the sacrifice of the Cross in a real way. It is the indispensable means for obtaining the spiritual strength which must be expressed in the apostolate of each priest with the sole aim of preaching and spreading the Kingdom of God for the eternal salvation of souls.
Like the great majority of present day Bishops we have had this very same formation which was decreed by the Popes ever since the Council of Trent. In 1974 the report of the Apostolic Visitors made after they had been to Ecône was very positive. Rome knows that we train priests the way the Church has trained them for over four centuries. It is well know there, too, that the opening of seminaries and the doctrinal formation relating to them is one of the principal duties of bishops, after that of defending faith and truth. Why then, do they wish to suppress Ecône? Why, eight days ago were they asking us to suspend the ordinations - to not make good priests? Is it the Holy Ghost who wishes this or is it the Devil?
Very grave reasons compel us to take the decision to continue our activity and to carry out the ordinations on the 29th of June. First of all, the present situation of the Church. In the face of general apostasy and the destruction of the Church from inside, provoked especially by the post-Conciliar reforms and the “open” spirit which dominated the Council, we think that for the good of the Church and for its very survival the ordination of good priests is absolutely indispensable. We read again with anguish the statement on the "auto-destruction" of the Church made by the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI.
Secondly, there is the legal correctness of our situation. In November 1970 we obtained the authorization of the Bishop of Fribourg to form a fraternity in his diocese and to open seminaries according to a statute which was subsequently approved by Cardinal Wright, Prefect for the Congregation for the Clergy. It is difficult to understand how after five years suddenly there was the wish to suppress the seminary when we had changed nothing and done absolutely nothing to deserve the suppression.
Besides, the suppression in 1975 was carried out without any trial or any regular interrogation. We retain in conscience that we are not obliged to accept such an arbitrary decision because behind it we see a hand which is not that of the Church, an attitude and a lack of respect for Canon Law which is not that of the Church. These things force us to believe than an enemy has penetrated the Church and that it is he who orders us to close our seminary and to destroy our Society.
This enemy is Freemasonry. The constant advance of heresies and of apostasies obliges us to think of Masonic influence in the Curia - worse, of a Masonic Lodge inside the Vatican itself. Cardinals and Secretaries hold the offices of their predecessors who were virtuous, often saintly men, but they do not teach anymore the faith of their predecessors, preferring to support the spread of ideas contrary to Catholic doctrine and to preach ecumenism.
A decade of silence on the anathemata of the Council of Trent and of Pius VI against the Council of Pistoia; silence on the documents of the Church's social teaching – the Syllabus of Pius IX, Libertas and Immortalis Dei of Leo XIII, Pascendi Dorminici Gregis and the condemnation of the Sillon made by Saint Pius X, Quas Primas and Divini Redemptoris of Pius XI – to quote a few of the documents which treat of the authority of the Popes, this silence increases the suspicion that the Church is occupied by a “counter-Church” of protestant origin and committed to spreading all the errors which the Popes have condemned for more than four centuries.
What faith do they ask us to profess? That of all time with all the graces deriving from the Mass and from the Sacraments and with the devotion to Jesus Christ, to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints? Or rather the faith of ecumenism which has produced the Catholic-Protestant Mass and the proliferation of every sort of unworthy cult, which denies the divinity of Jesus Christ and puts all religions on the same level?
They talk to us of obedience. We wish to and we try to obey more and more every day the Church of all time founded by Jesus Christ, Son of God and Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity but we refuse to obey Masonry with its promotion of liturgical reform resulting in the “naturalization of the Incarnation.” The effects of the liturgical reforms are every day more clear and obvious to all. The ecumenical Mass leads logically to apostasy. One cannot serve two masters. One cannot nourish oneself indifferently with truth and error because error with its evil tendencies will triumph over the more austere and demanding truth.
Another consequence one is apt to forget is the destruction of Catholic States. This is being done with the active collaboration of the Vatican. The Mass no longer represents the source of political unity based on the unity of the Catholic Faith. Thus, the Catholic State becomes an ecumenical and pluralistic State, then it soon becomes a neutral if not atheistic State in accordance with the Conciliar document on Religious Freedom.
Ecumenical liturgy, ecumenical Bibles, ecumenical catechisms are indeed a device of the Devil because they cover error with a certain amount of truth.
Ecône is an obstacle to those who wish to destroy the Mass and the Catholic priesthood. We are convinced insofar as we ordain priests whose spiritual life is modeled on that of Our Lord Jesus Christ that we are serving the Church and acting for the glory of God. We remind those that maintain that we are distancing ourselves from the Church that each of the faithful has the duty of not obeying orders contrary to the Faith. The obedience to ecclesiastical superiors finds a limit, in fact, when something harmful or clearly damaging is proposed or ordered in the name of obedience. He who remains faithful to the Catholic dispositions and institutions tested by centuries renders himself supremely worthy of the Church.
The accusation of separation and of schism made against us because we refuse to participate in the protestantization of the Church is ridiculous! It is, however, deserved by those who foment that same protestantization. Among them are those who have for a long time fallen away from the Catholic Faith and yet, in common with all the heretics of history, work to try to make the Church become like them and conform to their ideas. We cannot understand how intelligent people can state that they “prefer to err with the Pope rather than to be with truth against the Pope.”
If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry. Our consolation will be that we remain in the company of God and of all the martyrs who have given their lives to keep the Faith.
The priests we ordain today and all their brothers of the Society of Saint Pius X are at the disposal of the Pope and of the Church at any moment to collaborate in the work of restoring omnia in Christo, that is, of bringing back Christ to the center of family and social life, of education and every juridical order.
In the meantime we shall continue in our attachment to the Mass of all time which is the expression of the Ten Commandments. What are the Ten Commandments except the love for God and for our fellow men? What renders better this love than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? God is glorified by Our Lord Jesus Christ through His sacrifice. There can be no greater act of charity for men than the sacrifice of Jesus who continues to offer His life for us.
This is our Faith. In this we believe and for this we pray. We trust in the intercession of the Immaculate Virgin that she may illuminate and strengthen Catholics of all the world and that the preaching of Christ crucified and of his social kingdom may increase.
|
|
|
|
| Testimony concerning Archbishop Lefebvre by his private theologian at Vatican II |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:21 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Testimony of Fr. Victor-Alain Berto, the private theologian of Archbishop Lefebvre at the Second Vatican Council:
Quote:I say this in the presence of God: I had the very great and undeserved honor of being his theologian. Sworn confidentiality prevents me from speaking about the work that I did under him, but I betray no secret by telling you that Archbishop Lefebvre is a theologian, and by far superior to his own theologian, and God grant that all the [Council] Fathers might be theologians to the same degree as he is! He has a perfectly sure and refined theological habitus, to which his very great devotion to the Holy See adds that connaturality that allows him, even before discursive thinking intervenes, to discern intuitively what is and what is not compatible with the prerogatives of the Rock of the Church.
He in no way resembles those [Council] Fathers who, as one of them had the gall to boast publicly, used to take from the hands of a peritus [expert], in the car that was bringing them to St. Peter’s, the ‘ready-made’ text of their intervention in aula [in the Council Hall]. Not once did I submit to him a memorandum, a note, or an outline, without him reviewing, recasting, rethinking and sometimes rewriting them from start to finish, by his own personal, diligent work. I did not ‘collaborate’ with him; if the word were English I would say that I really ‘sublaborated' with him [i.e., worked under his supervision], in keeping with my status as a private theologian and his honor and dignity as a Father of an Ecumenical Council, a Judge and Doctor of the Faith together with the Roman Pontiff.” (January 3, 1964) Source
+ + +
As a complement to what Fr. Berto speaks of [above] in reference to the extensive knowledge of theology of Archbishop Lefebvre, it is interesting to note that the Archbishop held two doctorate degrees:
Quote:"Le 21 septembre 1929, Marcel Lefebvre est ordonné prêtre par Mgr Liénart en la chapelle Notre-Dame du Sacré-Cœur à Lille. Il revient ensuite à Rome pour préparer son doctorat en théologie, tout en faisant office de grand cérémoniaire au séminaire.Déjà titulaire d'un doctorat en philosophie, il obtient le doctorat de théologie le 2 juillet 1930."
"On September 21, 1929, Marcel Lefebvre was ordained a priest by Mgr. Liénart in the chapel of Notre-Dame du Sacré-Cœur in Lille. He then returned to Rome to prepare his doctorate in theology, while serving as master of ceremonies at the seminary. Already holding a doctorate in philosophy, he obtained his doctorate in theology on July 2, 1930."
+ + +
Archbishop Lefebvre had:
- a pre-Vatican II Catholic formation
- two doctorate degrees – one in philosophy and one in theology
- an anti-modernist, anti-liberal, anti-revolutionary formation by the great Fr. Le Floch*
He truly is the best guide and source to go to in this crisis in the Church!
*About Fr. Le Floch:
“Fr. Henri Le Floch was a teacher under whom one would give his eye-teeth to be formed. Thoroughly Catholic, thoroughly committed to the scholasticism of St. Thomas, thoroughly anti-liberal and anti-Modernist, thoroughly imbued with the Roman school of theology, and with the competence to convey these truths so they be central to one's life, Fr. Le Floch trained his men. Archbishop Lefebvre readily admitted that were it not for the solid formation he received from Fr. Le Floch, he too might have succumbed to the creeping liberalism of the age.” (John Vennari, article in The Angelus called,“Marcel Lefebvre, The Biography,” August 2005)
Archbishop Lefebvre in his own words:
- “He [Fr. Le Floch] was the one who taught us what the popes were to the world and the Church, what they had taught for a century and a half - against liberalism, modernism and Communism, and the whole doctrine of the Church on these topics. He really made us understand and share in this battle of the popes to preserve the world and the Church from these scourges which plague us today. That was a revelation to me.” (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre, The Biography p. 36)
- “Fr. Le Floch made us enter into and live the history of the Church, this fight that the perverse powers take to our Lord. We were mobilized against this dreadful liberalism, against the Revolution and the forces of evil which were trying to overcome the Church, the reign of our Lord, the Catholic States, and the whole of Christianity.” (Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, pp. 36-37)
- "I will never thank God enough for allowing me to know that truly extraordinary man." (Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, p. 35)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1986 Conference 'Times of St. Athanasius' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:19 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
Mesdames, Messieurs,
I thank Father Finnegan for having prepared on the occasion of my stop‑over this conference and the ceremony which is going to follow. Indeed I did not actually have any intention to give a special conference here on my way back from the trip which I did with Father Black. But it comes out to be a very propitious occasion.
This will allow me to give you, during the few moments of this conference, some more precise information on the present situation of the Church. Because it is my impression that many Catholics do not understand, cannot understand the real situation of the Church today. Now, in order to take the decision to continue faithfully the Catholic Church, to maintain our Catholic Faith, we must realize that the Catholic Faith is in danger. Unless we reflect carefully on the present situation, we may be led little by little to the complete loss of the Catholic Faith! This is unfortunately the case of many Catholics who are losing the Faith nowadays. And so I hope the short moments of this conference will be helpful to you and that you may draw out of it some personal fruits.
IN YOUR PARISH
Remember your reactions after the Council, and even during the Council, when you saw that your priests had a sudden change of attitude, even of exterior aspect. You saw your priests suddenly giving up their priestly garments. You heard them saying: “after all, we are men like everyone else, we need not to distinguish ourselves from other Catholics.” Then they had more familiar attitudes with you, with the population of their parishes; they were seen in cafes (or bars), in cinemas, without any sign of their priesthood, and you were surprised; you said, “But why? What is happening? Why do our priests change their attitude in such a way?”
And it is not only the priest’s attitude which surprised you, but when you went into your parish church, you noticed that the priest had no longer the soutane, he was putting the alb upon his civil garment, or he did not put on sacred vestments; that the priest no longer did any genuflections before our Blessed Lord. And suddenly you noticed that the tabernacle disappeared from the high altar; you knew no longer where the Blessed Sacrament was; then a table replaced the altar, the statues of the saints were disappearing. And you wondered “What on earth is happening? Why all these changes? We did not ask for all this! What is happening to these priests, for they are changing out most holy religion?” And you were right to be puzzled; all these rapid changes at the end of the Council and in the few years after were truly astonishing and bewildering. And you wondered: “But how all this could have happened?”
And then you saw little by little lay people taking practically the place of the priest; men and even women reading the Epistle, the Gospel and even distributing the Holy Communion. And the priest was sitting while lay persons were giving Communion, and were giving the Most Blessed Sacrament in the hands! Maybe you knelt down to receive your Lord, and the priest gave you a sign to stand up, that now you should receive Communion in the hands. And you wondered: “but does the priest still believe in the real presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist?”
And even worse, one day you noticed that your priest was…gone! He had left the parish and got married! And you learned that there were not only one, not only two, but thousands of priests who were gone and had married! Recently a meeting took place near Castel Gandolfo, about three months ago, a meeting of representatives of married priests. At this meeting they claimed they were 70,000! Seventy thousand married priests! That is one priest out of five who had married, abandoned his priesthood. And you even learned that this one or that married a nun! You learned that thousands of nuns were leaving their convents and getting married. “What is happening in the Church?”
YOUR BISHOP
And so you decided to write to your bishops. You told them: “We cannot continue like that, it is not lawful, these changes are not normal, not Catholic.” You decided to write to your bishop to ask for some explanations, to ask: “how can it happen that our priests are forsaking their priesthood? How can it happen that our priests do not believe any longer in their priesthood and are replaced by laymen?” And you did well.
But you were surprised by the reaction of your bishop. Your bishop answered you: “But now one must follow the spirit of the Council. There has been the Second Vatican Council, you must not forget this, so you must not wonder if there are now some changes in the Church.” Moreover, you learned that the one who presided at the marriage of this or that priest in the diocese was the bishop himself! The bishop himself marrying his priests in his private chapel! And he was explaining to his faithful that from now on this priest had found “another way” to realize his Christian life, and thus he did not find any difficulty to be present at this marriage.
And then you learned that the little seminary was sold. They had sold the little seminary because “now there was no need for a little seminary; seminarians must go in colleges like any other child, no need for a little seminary.” And even one day you learned that there was no longer a major seminary of the diocese! The major seminary was sold; the government or the town had bought it to make of it a house for students. “But where are our seminarians? Shall we still have some priests?” “Well, now, our seminarians, they live in flats and they follow the courses at the university because they must keep in touch with the world. Priests ought to be in contact with the world. So in flats, they can invite other young men, young girls, they can have contacts, live as the other men. There is no need to make distinctions between clerics and faithful.” And then you learned that there were almost no seminarians, that the bishop was ordaining only one or two priests per year in the diocese while in the past it was usual to have fifteen, twenty or thirty priests ordained.
And so you were even more bewildered and said: “So it is not only my parish, it is now the diocese, the diocese is now contaminated!” And one day you decided to pay a visit to your bishop and you found him in civil clothes, no more sign of his episcopate, no pectoral cross, no episcopal ring, nothing, like a manager, a businessman.
And not only this, but one day you learned through your children that the catechism in schools was changed, that the Old Catechism was no longer taught, that the bishop had now decided that the catechism had to be changed. And so you took your children’s catechism, you looked into it and exclaimed: “but what is this? In this catechism they do not speak of purgatory, they do not speak of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, they do not speak of angels, they do not speak of original sin! But the Faith, is the Faith changed? Shall our children learn the Faith as we were taught it? What is this? Why?”
ROME
So you decided to write to Rome. And many did write to Rome to complain about their bishops. They said: “Do our bishops have the right to change the Catechism? And in a little while we shall have no more priests, because there is no longer any seminary! What shall the Catholic Church become? Our children do not want to enter the seminary any more, do not want to become priests, because why become a priest if these priests marry and say they are men like others. So vocations have disappeared.” So you wrote to Rome and you did well.
You wrote to Rome. Very often you do not receive any answer at all. So many letters of complaints, of despair, reach Rome that they are not answered. Or if they are answered, it is a very short answer: “You must have confidence in your bishop; you must have confidence in the episcopal conference of your country . You must know from now on that there has been the Second Vatican Council and so you must adapt to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.”
And then you learn that in Rome also there are unbelievable ceremonies. One day charismatic groups were received in St. Peter’s basilica, and thus in St. Peter’s truly scandalous manifestations happened: all these charismatics lifting their arms in the air, shouting, screaming, falling down, embracing each other in a shameful way, scandalous way, in St. Peter’s basilica itself! And even recently in St. Mary Major’s basilica, the great and beautiful church dedicated to the Blessed Virgin in Rome, we were told that the same charismatics sang their songs as usual and did the same scandalous exterior corporal manifestations.
And if you tried to go during the week at Mass at St. Peter’s, you could see that in St. Peter’s also the Cardinal in charge of the Vatican basilica says Mass on a table, a marble table but still a table; it is no longer the beautiful Altar of the Blessed Sacrament or the beautiful Papal Altar or the beautiful Altar of the Four Doctors of the Church in the back of the sanctuary of St. Peter’s basilica, no, it is on a table facing the people, without consecrated stone for the Sacrifice, with little respect for the Blessed Sacrament.
And one must say it, it was in the newspapers, I do not invent it. We have all learned that the Pope went for a ceremony, participated in a ceremony with the Lutherans in Rome, in the Lutheran temple of Rome! And we recently learned that the Pope had sent some delegates for the laying down of the first stone of the Mosque in Rome!
And we learned recently that with the change of concordate in Italy, Rome was no longer a holy city. Up until now, Rome was considered as a sacred city, a holy city by the Italian government. From now on, Rome is not a holy city; therefore, anything can be done in it, the most scandalous things from the government, from the mayor of Rome, the Pope can no longer say anything while before he could intervene in order, for example, to forbid precisely the building of a mosque or the building of a temple; he could forbid this because Rome was considered as the Holy City of Catholicism.
And we understand that, in his travels, the Pope accepts practically all that he is asked to do. Some ceremonies have truly no longer the Catholic character: the way Holy Communion is sometimes distributed is painful; the Blessed Sacrament is put into plastic bags and those who distribute the Holy Eucharist take them under their arms, as it happened in Paris, as it happened in Canada, they put the plastic bags under their arms and then distribute the Sacred Hosts as one distributes ordinary pieces of bread or any kind of food! So these kinds of things are truly unheard of and we ask ourselves, “But what on earth happened to Holy Mother Church? Because we can see considerable changes even in the highest places, even in Rome.”
THE PERSECUTION
So if you know someone in Rome, as I personally know some cardinals who are traditional, who have the traditional spirit, you go and see them; Cardinal Pallazini, for instance, Cardinal Oddi. What do these cardinals say about the situation of Rome? What do these cardinals say about the situation of the whole world, of the whole Catholic world? They also are frightened, in desolation. “But what can we do?” and they say: “If we speak, if we raise our voices we shall be eliminated, we shall be expelled from our places!” Indeed, there is a persecution of the Traditionalists, a persecution of all those who want to keep the Tradition, from the cardinals even to the bishops, to the priests, to the faithful. ALL those who are traditionalist are persecuted. The poor Cardinal Ottaviani passed years after the Council in true sorrow, feeling that he was despised, he who was a man of such wonderful rectitude, of such a wonderful firmity in the Doctrine; even during the Council he was despised in a shameful way. And all the other traditional cardinals have been eliminated. And progressive, modernist cardinals were put in their stead; they are for the changes, for the novelties in the Church. Thus now in Rome you have these cardinals: Cardinal Casaroli, Cardinal Baggio and Cardinal Polletti, the Cardinal Vicar, and you have as Secretary to the Congregatio to the Divine Worship Virgilio Noe, people who are entirely against Tradition; they do not want to see it at all, they are against, absolutely against. As soon as someone is attached to the Tradition, he must be eliminated, he must be pushed outside of the services of the Church.
Thus many traditional bishops gave their resignations. I know many bishops; I would take the example of Bishop MacQuett, Archbishop of Dublin who felt despised after the Council because he was attached to Tradition. He gave his resignation and six weeks later he died. I am sure he died out of sorrow, sorrow for what was happening in the Church, sorrow to feel that he, a man so dedicated to the Pope, dedicated to the Church for all his life, was despised in such a way by Rome itself. This had bewildered him and practically killed him. Also here (in California) I think of Cardinal McIntyre, who was also very attached to the Tradition. He also was put aside. Cardinal Siri, who is still the Cardinal of Genoa, was president of the episcopal conference in Italy before the arrival of Pope Paul VI. When Pope Paul VI arrived, he took him off the presidency of the Italian Episcopal Conference because he was attached to the Tradition. One could quote similar cases everywhere, in every country. Priests - and you certainly know some priests and you have some of them here among the older priests, you know some of them - were persecuted by their bishops because they were keeping the Tradition.
And if I, myself, am persecuted, and I have been and still am persecuted in my seminaries, in my Society, if I am persecuted it is because I am attached to Tradition, and they hate me because I keep Tradition in my seminaries. And all the lay faithful have a similar case: lay people attached to Tradition are thrown out of their parishes. You have there, my dear brethren, a very tragic situation in the Church.
As I see that the time now is getting long, I will conclude the conference. I feel it necessary to say that all of these changes which we have considered this morning have been the result not of hazard or just pure accident, but they are the result of the application of a doctrine, the doctrines of modernism and of liberalism which have been introduced into the Church. And Pope Saint Pius X had predicted it. Pope Saint Pius X said: “Now the enemy is within the Church, the enemy is in the seminaries.” He said that himself. So from these seminaries came forth some priests; from these priests came forth bishops and even a Pope, with these liberal ideas, with the modernist ideas.
WHAT IS MODERNISM
If one tries to give a definition, or at least a clear idea of these modernist and liberal ideas, of what do they consist? “The Church is no longer the only true religion.” Here you have one of the truths denied by all these modernists and liberals now. “The Church is no longer the only way of salvation.” This is very grievous, because for twenty centuries the Church has affirmed this: “I am the only way of salvation.” The Church was saying: “Our Lord Jesus Christ gave me all means of salvation; He did not give them to any other group. He gave His Sacrifice of the Mass, His Sacraments, His teaching and all the care of the salvation of souls to His Apostles, to the Church, and to no other group. Therefore, one cannot be saved outside the Church, at least through Baptism of Desire; one must be baptized, baptized by water or at least by desire; this is necessary to go to Heaven.” This is what the Church has always preached. Why did She send missionaries throughout the world? To preach: “you must be converted to our Lord Jesus Christ, you must become Christian, you must be baptized and become Catholic if you want to be baptized!” Many missionaries have been killed, slaughtered, all the Apostles have been martyred because they have preached this Gospel, because they have preached the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. But now they say: “No! All religions are ways of salvation.” My dear brethren, this is false, absolutely false! And it is precisely this which changes everything inside the Church. This influence comes from Protestantism and from Freemasonry; one must say it, these are Masonic ideas that the Church must not claim to be the only way of salvation. If the Church wants to be friend with Protestants and Freemasons, She must give up saying that She is the only way of salvation. She must accept to say that all religions are ways of salvation. But this is contrary to what our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said! Our Lord said: “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; he who shall believe shall be saved, he who shall not believe shall be condemned.” No other choice!
Today we celebrate the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus. Now if there is an example which is given to us today and which contradicts the errors which are spreading in the Church, it is in this feast of the Holy Name of Jesus. St. Peter said at the very beginning of his apostolate: “there is no other name given to men on earth by which men ought to be saved than the Name of Jesus.” Thus there is no other name by which we can go to Heaven than the Name of Jesus! And the Church is the Mystical spouse of our Lord. There is only ONE Mystical Spouse of our Lord; it is through Her that we may be saved. This is what has always been the Catholic Faith.
So now we are in a very grievous situation in the Church, because everywhere within the Church is spread the idea that all religions are ways of salvation and that the Holy Ghost is working in all of them. Now I do not know how the Good Lord will solve Himself this grievous problem, but for us the conclusion which we ought to draw from all the facts which I quoted, from the present situation, is that we must remain Catholics, we must believe in the Catholic Church. We say it in our Creed: “Unam Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Ecclesiam." Unam: One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. ONE, there are not two, but ONE! We must believe this, and absolutely refuse to follow these false ideas which are spreading everywhere in the Church, that one may be saved in any religion; this would be to ruin the Church. The Church would no longer have Her “raison d’ê‑tre”, reason for being. If one may be saved in any religion, why the Church? Why? She has no longer any reason for being. This was the very “raison d’être” of the Church - to be the Way of Salvation and to work with all Her strength to convert souls so that they may become Catholic in order to go to Heaven, to be saved.
So in this feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, let all of us here present take the resolution to keep the Faith as the Tradition kept it, the traditional Faith as the Church has always given it to us, to keep Her teaching, to keep Her Catechism of the Council of Trent in which are summed up all the truths of our Faith, to keep the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to keep the Sacraments as before for you, for your children, and above all, gather yourselves around priests who are keeping the Faith. Do not hesitate, do not listen to criticism neither from modernist bishops nor from modernist priests in your parishes. Do not listen; follow the Catholic priests, those who are keeping the Catechism, those who are keeping the Faith. These are in the Truth, these shall save your souls. Do not be afraid, otherwise you will do as, for instance, the Catholics in England did when they passed to Anglicanism. They followed their priests, they followed their bishops, and they became Anglicans, they became heretics, they went out of the Catholic Church. If you also follow your progressive priests, if you follow your progressive bishops, you shall become progressive and that is no longer Catholic. This is a new error, a new heresy. Let us remain Catholic! In order to know what is Catholic, let us look at what the Church has done for twenty centuries, had taught; let us keep what the Church has done for twenty centuries. It is not possible that the Church would have been wrong for twenty centuries. So let us attach ourselves to twenty centuries of Tradition and we continue to do the same.
I ask you to pray during this ceremony asking for the grace of remaining Catholic and that we may continue our work in our seminaries for our priests, to make Catholic priests, to continue the work and encourage religious Monks and Nuns to remain true Monks, true Nuns. Here in America you have the priory at Campbell with your priests, you have the Seminary at Ridgefield; some seminarians from around here are in Ridgefield. You have the Carmel recently opened at Philadelphia with American Sisters, you have the College of St. Mary’s in Kansas, where a group of priests and nuns are keeping the Tradition. The College is wonderful and is working very well; I wish that you support it. And there will soon be at Armada, Michigan, near Detroit, a novitiate of the Sisters who are now at St. Mary’s; they will have a Novitiate for the Sisters of the Society. This is encouraging news, this shows that there are still vocations, there are good vocations, but they must be led according to Tradition.
So let us ask the Most Blessed Virgin Mary in the end, let us ask her to help us to remain Catholic, to love her Divine Son. She is not ecumenical; the Virgin Mary believes that there is only one Savior, her Son Jesus, Whose Mother she is. She knows that it is by Him that every soul may be saved. If one asks the Blessed Virgin Mary whether there is another name by which one may be saved than the Name of her Divine Son, she would answer: “No! This is impossible!” Every time she came on earth, that she appeared, she appeared either with her Divine Son, or she encouraged souls to come to her Divine Son in order to be saved. So we ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to make the Church remain Catholic and during this Mass I promise you to pray for you, for your families, for all those who are in hesitation that they may come to the Truth, that they may return to the Truth, that they remain attached to the Tradition.
My dear brethren, I thank you for your attention..
Someone asked that I give in a few words what is my situation, the situation in which I find myself in the Church, in which you find yourselves also. Well, I think that the shortest answer, the simplest answer, is this: we are in the situation in which St. Athanasius found himself. I am not St. Athanasius, I am not a saint, but he found himself in the same situation. All the Church had passed to Arianism; the great majority of bishops, the Pope himself was favorable to a certain kind of “semi‑Arianism.” Well, St. Athanasius was excommunicated by the Pope! And Athanasius became a saint. He was visiting everywhere, he was going everywhere. He was saying Mass in chapels everywhere in order to maintain the Catholic Faith against Arianism. We are in a situation fairly similar. It is not Arianism but modernism; modernism which is, as Pope Pius X himself said, the synthesis collecting all heresies. Now this modernism is underneath everywhere, is spreading everywhere in the Church, even in Rome. Well, we defend our Faith, we defend the Catholic Faith. As St. Athanasius was saying to those who attacked him, “you have kept the churches, you have kept the monuments, we have kept the Faith! Faith is more important than monuments!” Well, we are in the same situation. So let us pray to St. Athanasius that he may give us the courage to follow him so that one day Holy Mother Church may find again Her good Tradition.
|
|
|
|
| December 6th - St. Nicholas |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-06-2020, 01:12 AM - Forum: December
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Saint Nicholas
Archbishop of Myra in Lycia
(† 342)
Saint Nicholas, the patron Saint of Russia, has won the warmest of praises from other Saints such as Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Peter Damian, who called him the glory of young men, the honor of the elderly, the splendor of priests and the light of Pontiffs. All the world was filled with his praises, Saint Peter added. The universal Church, in the Collect of his office, claims that God made known his nobility by an infinite number of miracles.
He was born during the third century, nephew of the Archbishop of Myra. He had lost his parents while still very young, and he desired not to conserve his rich heritage. Gradually he gave away everything of which he could dispose, establishing dowries for poor maidens and seeking out the needy wherever they could be found. The Archbishop, his uncle, already aware of his vocation to sanctity, ordained Saint Nicholas priest and appointed him Abbot of the monastery of Holy Sion near Myra. He undertook a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, resurrecting a sailor who fell from a mast during the voyage; he prayed for the frightened passengers in a near-fatal tempest and calmed it. He visited Saint Anthony of the Desert and healed many sick persons in Alexandria during a stopover in Egypt.
On the death of the Archbishop of Myra, he was elected to the vacant see. Immediately after the pontifical Mass, he resurrected an infant who had fallen into a fire.
A persecution broke out under the emperor Licinius; Saint Nicholas was banished and kept in chains. He suffered from severe mistreatment but returned to his church when Constantine the Great defeated Licinius, and in 313 then put a definitive end to the persecutions. Saint Nicholas labored in his domains to stop the worship of false gods, still practiced there as elsewhere. With his own hands he cut down a huge tree, site of a sacrilegious cult of the goddess Diana. During a famine his prayers multiplied the provisions of wheat which he had ordered for the port of Myra, to such an extent that what would have sufficed for his people for only a few days, was found to be sufficient for more than two years. He rescued from death, just before they were hanged, three innocents condemned by a judge who had been corrupted by money, reprehended the latter for his crime and sent these liberated ones home, entirely exonerated.
Throughout his life he retained the bright and simple manners of his early years; no one could converse with him without finding himself spiritually renewed. Saint Nicholas was the special protector of the innocent and the wronged. He is usually represented at the side of a container in which a cruel butcher had concealed the bodies of three young persons, whom he had killed and was intending to use in his commerce, but who were restored to life by the Saint. This miracle was reported by Saint Bonaventure in a sermon.
Saint Nicholas rejoiced when God made known to him that the end of his pilgrimage was near. He retired to his Monastery of Holy Sion, and after a short but intense episode of fever, died in the year 342. He is the patron of schoolchildren, sailors, travelers and pilgrims, prisoners and many others. His relics were translated in 1087 to Bari, Italy, where a church was built in their honor. And there, after fifteen centuries, the manna of Saint Nicholas still flows from his bones and heals all kinds of illnesses.
|
|
|
|
| December 5th - St. Sabas |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-05-2020, 12:32 AM - Forum: December
- Replies (2)
|
|
Saint Sabas
Patriarchal Abbot in Palestine
(439-531)
Saint Sabas, one of the most renowned patriarchs of the monks of Palestine, was born in the year 439, near Caesarea. At the age of fifteen, in the absence of his parents, he suffered under the conduct of an uncle, and weary of the world's problems decided to forsake the world and enter a monastery not far from his family home. After he had spent ten years in religious life, his two uncles and his parents attempted to persuade him to leave the monastery to which he had migrated in Palestine. He replied: Do you want me to be a deserter, leaving God after placing myself in His service? If those who abandon the militia of earthly kings are severely punished, what chastisement would I not deserve if I abandoned that of the King of heaven?
When he was thirty years old, desiring greater solitude, he began to live an angelic life so far above nature that he seemed no longer to have a body. The young sage, as he was called by Saint Euthymius, Abbot of a nearby monastery, dwelt in a cavern on a mountain near Jerusalem, where he prayed, sang Psalms and wove baskets of palm branches. He was forty-five years old when he began to direct those who came to live as hermits, as he did, and he gave each of them a place to build a cell; soon this was the largest monastery of Palestine. He left the region when certain agitators complained of him, for he considered himself incapable of maintaining good discipline. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sallustus, did not easily credit the complaints, and instead ordained Sabas a priest, that he might say Mass for his disciples — for they had been displeased by his lack of desire for that honor. He was at that time fifty-three years old. The Patriarch presented him to them as their father, whom they should obey and honor, and made him Superior of all the Palestine monasteries. But several monks remained obstinate, and Saint Sabas again went elsewhere, to a cavern near Scythopolis.
As the years passed, he was in charge of seven monasteries; but his influence was not limited to Palestine. The heresies afflicting religion were being sustained by the emperor of Constantinople, who had exiled the Catholic Patriarch of that city, Elias. Saint Sabas converted the one who had replaced Elias, and wrote to the emperor that he should cease to persecute the Church of Jerusalem, and to impose taxes on the cities of Palestine which they were unable to pay. In effect, the people were reduced to extreme misery. The emperor died soon afterwards, and the pious Justin replaced him. Justin restored the true faith by an edict and recalled the exiles, re-establishing the exiled prelates in their sees.
When Saint Sabas was ninety-one years old, he made the long journey to Constantinople to ask Justinian, successor to Justin, not to act with severity against the province of Palestine, where a revolt had occurred by the non-submission of a group of Samaritans. The emperor honored him highly and wished to endow his monasteries with wealth, but the holy Patriarch asked him to use the riches he was offering to build a hospice for pilgrims in Jerusalem, to decorate the unfinished Church of the Blessed Virgin, to build a fortress where the monks could take refuge when barbarians invaded the land, and finally, to re-establish preaching of the true Faith, by edicts proscribing the various errors being propagated. The holy Abbot lived to be ninety-two years old, and died in 531, in the arms of the monks of his first monastery.
|
|
|
|
| Pope takes up Biden’s campaign slogan, tweets society must ‘build back better’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-04-2020, 07:41 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Pope takes up Biden’s campaign slogan, tweets society must ‘build back better’
‘I find the expression ‘building back better’ quite striking,’ the Pope said.
VATICAN CITY, December 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The leader of the Catholic Church quoted today in a tweet words that are central to Joe Biden’s plan to remake America in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“To help our society to ‘build back better’, inclusion of the vulnerable must also entail efforts to promote their active participation,” tweeted the Pope on Dec. 3, linking to a message he gave for the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, an annual observance instituted by the United Nations several decades ago.
In his Dec. 3 message, Pope Francis said he finds the expression “building back better” quite striking, noting that the theme for this year’s celebration is “Building Back Better: Toward a Disability-inclusive, Accessible and Sustainable post-COVID-19 World.”
“I find the expression ‘building back better’ quite striking. It makes me think of the Gospel parable of the house built on rock or sand (cf. Mt 7:24-27; Lk 6:46-49),” said the Pope.
While the theme of the “International Day of Persons with Disabilities” is “Building Back Better,” the Pope’s tweet of the theme dropped the gerund on “building,” making the quote in the tweet identical to the slogan of Biden’s campaign platform.
Last week, Biden launched his BuildBackBetter.gov website hosted on a U.S. government server. Previously, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) had formally notified Biden that he would now be receiving transition funds. Part of the package includes receiving a government domain for a transition website. Biden pointed his followers to it with a simple tweet on Nov. 23.
“The website lists Biden’s priorities as curbing COVID-19 (including urging state and local authorities to force mask-wearing in their jurisdictions), economic recovery (with little in the way of specifics), racial equality (including the creation of a “national police oversight commission”), and climate change (primarily via a dramatic increase in government spending),” LifeSite’s Calvin Freiburger reported.
LifeSite’s Patrick Delaney has noted in a Nov. 2 report how Biden’s campaign plans align with a radical international socialist plan called “The Great Reset.” Globalist elites have characterized the “Great Reset” as a plan to ‘push the reset button’ on the global economy.
“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate [in the Great Reset], and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism,” wrote Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum (WEF), in a June 3, 2020 article published on WEF’s website.
Such a “reset means a revolution: a deep transformation of all that is done, thought, or believed — making a clean break with the past,” wrote LifeSite’s Jeanne Smits.
Justin Haskins of the Heartland Institute recently observed that Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan “comes straight from the Great Reset’s playbook,” and will even use the same terminology.
“It can’t be a coincidence that Biden is now using that exact language while calling for nearly identical policies. Biden is clearly taking his cues from the World Economic Forum and other supporters of the Great Reset,” he wrote in a July 23 article published on Fox Business.
LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen noted that Pope Francis’s opinion piece published in the New York Times on Thanksgiving Day “echoed the sentiments of Joe Biden and other pushers of the so-called Great Reset, calling for the world to ‘build a better, different, human future.’”
The Pope’s piece “reads like a page from Biden’s Build Back Better campaign,” commented Westen. He pointed out that the name of “Jesus” or “Christ” never appears in the piece, and “God” is mentioned only once, assisting in the push for the new agenda.
Earlier this month, Biden related how he and the Pope had talked on the phone after the presidential election and how the Holy Father had extended “blessings and congratulations.”
In a short press statement released on the Biden-Harris transition website, Biden “thanked His Holiness for extending blessings and congratulations and noted his appreciation for His Holiness’ leadership in promoting peace, reconciliation, and the common bonds of humanity around the world.”
In his address to persons with disabilities today, the Pope reaffirmed the “right of persons with disabilities to receive the sacraments” but failed to mention the right of such persons to be born. In Iceland, every baby diagnosed with the disability of Down syndrome is aborted, and the majority of unborn babies with Down syndrome are targeted for abortion in various other parts of the world.
“Iceland is not alone in its aspirations to create a “Down syndrome-free” world,” wrote Lauren Bell in a 2017 report. “The holocaust of Down syndrome babies is a global epidemic, taking the lives of human beings created in the image of God on the basis of a prenatal diagnosis indicating Down syndrome,” she added.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Pope takes up Biden’s campaign slogan, tweets society must ‘build back better’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-04-2020, 07:41 AM - Forum: Great Reset
- No Replies
|
|
Pope takes up Biden’s campaign slogan, tweets society must ‘build back better’
‘I find the expression ‘building back better’ quite striking,’ the Pope said.
VATICAN CITY, December 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The leader of the Catholic Church quoted today in a tweet words that are central to Joe Biden’s plan to remake America in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“To help our society to ‘build back better’, inclusion of the vulnerable must also entail efforts to promote their active participation,” tweeted the Pope on Dec. 3, linking to a message he gave for the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, an annual observance instituted by the United Nations several decades ago.
In his Dec. 3 message, Pope Francis said he finds the expression “building back better” quite striking, noting that the theme for this year’s celebration is “Building Back Better: Toward a Disability-inclusive, Accessible and Sustainable post-COVID-19 World.”
“I find the expression ‘building back better’ quite striking. It makes me think of the Gospel parable of the house built on rock or sand (cf. Mt 7:24-27; Lk 6:46-49),” said the Pope.
While the theme of the “International Day of Persons with Disabilities” is “Building Back Better,” the Pope’s tweet of the theme dropped the gerund on “building,” making the quote in the tweet identical to the slogan of Biden’s campaign platform.
Last week, Biden launched his BuildBackBetter.gov website hosted on a U.S. government server. Previously, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) had formally notified Biden that he would now be receiving transition funds. Part of the package includes receiving a government domain for a transition website. Biden pointed his followers to it with a simple tweet on Nov. 23.
“The website lists Biden’s priorities as curbing COVID-19 (including urging state and local authorities to force mask-wearing in their jurisdictions), economic recovery (with little in the way of specifics), racial equality (including the creation of a “national police oversight commission”), and climate change (primarily via a dramatic increase in government spending),” LifeSite’s Calvin Freiburger reported.
LifeSite’s Patrick Delaney has noted in a Nov. 2 report how Biden’s campaign plans align with a radical international socialist plan called “The Great Reset.” Globalist elites have characterized the “Great Reset” as a plan to ‘push the reset button’ on the global economy.
“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate [in the Great Reset], and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism,” wrote Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum (WEF), in a June 3, 2020 article published on WEF’s website.
Such a “reset means a revolution: a deep transformation of all that is done, thought, or believed — making a clean break with the past,” wrote LifeSite’s Jeanne Smits.
Justin Haskins of the Heartland Institute recently observed that Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan “comes straight from the Great Reset’s playbook,” and will even use the same terminology.
“It can’t be a coincidence that Biden is now using that exact language while calling for nearly identical policies. Biden is clearly taking his cues from the World Economic Forum and other supporters of the Great Reset,” he wrote in a July 23 article published on Fox Business.
LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen noted that Pope Francis’s opinion piece published in the New York Times on Thanksgiving Day “echoed the sentiments of Joe Biden and other pushers of the so-called Great Reset, calling for the world to ‘build a better, different, human future.’”
The Pope’s piece “reads like a page from Biden’s Build Back Better campaign,” commented Westen. He pointed out that the name of “Jesus” or “Christ” never appears in the piece, and “God” is mentioned only once, assisting in the push for the new agenda.
Earlier this month, Biden related how he and the Pope had talked on the phone after the presidential election and how the Holy Father had extended “blessings and congratulations.”
In a short press statement released on the Biden-Harris transition website, Biden “thanked His Holiness for extending blessings and congratulations and noted his appreciation for His Holiness’ leadership in promoting peace, reconciliation, and the common bonds of humanity around the world.”
In his address to persons with disabilities today, the Pope reaffirmed the “right of persons with disabilities to receive the sacraments” but failed to mention the right of such persons to be born. In Iceland, every baby diagnosed with the disability of Down syndrome is aborted, and the majority of unborn babies with Down syndrome are targeted for abortion in various other parts of the world.
“Iceland is not alone in its aspirations to create a “Down syndrome-free” world,” wrote Lauren Bell in a 2017 report. “The holocaust of Down syndrome babies is a global epidemic, taking the lives of human beings created in the image of God on the basis of a prenatal diagnosis indicating Down syndrome,” she added.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| US govt to issue wallet-sized COVID-19 proof of vaccination cards |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-04-2020, 07:03 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
US govt to issue wallet-sized COVID-19 proof of vaccination cards
Releasing the image on the Department of Defense (DOD) website, the description says that they 'will be sent out as part of vaccination kits from Operation Warp Speed.'
WASHINGTON D.C., December 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – As COVID-19 vaccines prepare to be rolled out, the Department of Defense has released an image of a wallet-sized vaccination record card, which will be given to everyone who receives a COVID-19 vaccine.
Releasing the image on the Department of Defense (DOD) website, the description says that they “will be sent out as part of vaccination kits from Operation Warp Speed.”
The kit will further include “a card, a needle and syringe, alcohol wipes and a mask.”
Reporting on the news of the card, Dr. Kelly Moore, associate director of the Immunization Action Coalition which is involved in distributing the vaccine, said “Everyone will be issued a written card that they can put in their wallet that will tell them what they had and when their next dose is due. Let’s do the simple, easy thing first. Everyone’s going to get that.”
Moore also stated that people would be widely asked to volunteer their cell number, in order to “get a text message telling them when and where their next dose is scheduled to be administered.”
CNN added that “Vaccination clinics will also be reporting to their state immunization registries what vaccine was given, so that, for example, an entity could run a query if it didn't know where a patient got a first dose.”
The Texas Department of State Health Services, in an updated instruction on their website, includes mention of the vaccine record card. Providers of the vaccine “must provide a completed COVID-19 vaccination record card to every COVID-19 Vaccine recipient.” The card will be included in the vaccine shipment.
Similar information regarding the use of the vaccine record card is contained on the Department of Health for Minnesota’s website.
A document detailing the vaccination program, compiled by the CDC, consistently refers to the vaccination card. “Provide a completed COVID-19 vaccination record card to every vaccine recipient/parent/legal representative,” the document states, when listing the duties of a vaccine provider.
In an October article Dr. Michael Yeadon,who “spent over 30 years leading new [allergy and respiratory] medicines research in some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies,” and retired from the COVID-19 vaccine developer, Pfizer, with “the most senior research position in this field,” dismissed the need for a COVID-19 vaccine.
Yeadon stated: “There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.”
The technology involved in administering the vaccine, as used by Pfizer and Moderna, is so novel that it has yet to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as admitted by Pfizer itself.
It also avails of “messenger RNA,” which directly affects a person’s cells, and is “a vaccine technology that’s so new, no mRNA vaccines have ever been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”
Doctors from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), advising the CDC, warned that patients needed to be informed about the side-effects of COVID-19 vaccines. According to a report from CNBC, Dr. Sandra Fryhofer of the American Medical Association stressed, “We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park,” she said. “They are going to know they had a vaccine. They are probably not going to feel wonderful. But they’ve got to come back for that second dose.”
Some of the immediate results from some of the vaccine trials have included “severe” complications, involving headaches, fever, body aches and symptoms similar to a “severe hangover.
Contact
To register complaints and concerns about the vaccination card, visit the U.S Department of Health and Human Services page or the Centers for Disease Control here and here.
|
|
|
|
| ‘Sold out to Satan’: Viganò unloads on coronavirus ‘pseudo-health regime’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-04-2020, 06:44 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
‘Sold out to Satan’: Viganò unloads on coronavirus ‘pseudo-health regime’
The exiled archbishop had harsh words for the 'Great Reset' and those seeking to implement it
.
December 3, 2020 (Inside the Vatican) — “O God, you are awesome from your sanctuary; the God of Israel gives strength and power to his people.” —Psalm 68:35
On November 19, 2020, the founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, declared that “Covid is an opportunity for a global reset.”
In reality, Schwab was slavishly repeating what Jacques Attali said in the French weekly L’Express on May 3, 2009 [so, 11 years ago]: “History teaches us that humanity evolves significantly only when it is really afraid: then it initially develops defense mechanisms; sometimes intolerable (scapegoats and totalitarianisms); sometimes useless (distractions); sometimes effective (therapies, which, if necessary, may depart from all previous moral principles). Then, once the crisis is over, fear transforms these mechanisms to make them compatible with individual freedom and inscribe them as policies of a healthy democracy.”
Back then it was the swine flu which, according to the media, was expected to cause millions of deaths and for which nations bought millions of doses of vaccines never used, because they proved useless, from “Big Pharma.” Useless for all — except for those who sold them, making huge profits.
One might wonder why a flu virus that according to recent WHO data has a mortality (0.13%) slightly higher than that of a normal seasonal flu syndrome (0.10%) could have led to the declaration of the pandemic and to a series of practically identical countermeasures in almost all European nations and the American continent.
One might also wonder why Covid-19 treatments are generally discredited, minimized or prohibited, while the vaccine is considered the most effective solution.
And it needs to be explained how it is possible to create a vaccine, since — according to the statements of the US CDC (United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) — the virus has not yet been isolated.
What antigen may be used, if the virus SARS-CoV-2 cannot be isolated and replicated?
And what reliability can the virus tests have, since the tests are calibrated to detect only on the generic “Coronavirus” in general? And if on October 19 the Spallanzani Hospital in Rome announced the develop of a test that distinguishes between normal flu and Covid-19, may we know what so far have patients who undergo the new test been found positive for?
Perhaps this lack of clarity is why some members of the Moderna and Pfizer boards of directors have sold part of their company shares. So let’s go back to the questions that many posed to themselves months ago, and to the never-contradicted contents of my two Open Letters to President Trump: a world plan appears in its disconcerting reality. The architects of the plan, creating an unjustified social alarm about an alleged pandemic — that today we see is no more serious than a normal flu, as confirmed by official data from all over the world — has been used to create a tremendous global social and economic crisis and so to legitimize the drastic reduction of the basic rights of the population. It is what its authors themselves call the Great Reset: the global reset of the economy, of society and of masses of people.
In this project, the Covid virus plays a fundamental role, as an alibi that justifies — in the face of the “totem” of a science that has prostituted itself to the interests of an elite after having abdicated its mission to save human lives — the deprivation of freedom, the interference of governments in the private life of its citizens, the establishment of a pseudo-health regime in which, against all objective scientific evidence, the number of diners, the distance between people, the possibility of buying, selling, breathing and even praying, is decided from above.
Someone, in the deafening silence of the Catholic Hierarchy, has imposed the closure of churches or the limitation of religious celebrations, considering the House of God as a cinema or a museum, but at the same time declaring abortion clinics “essential services.”
These are the paradoxes of a misguided power, managed by people corrupt in the soul and sold out to Satan, a power which, after obsessively repeating the mantras of “democracy” and “power belongs to the people” is now forced to impose a dictatorship on the people themselves, in the name of the achievement of objectives aimed at protecting the political and financial interests of the elite.
The rich are getting richer and richer, while the middle classes that constitute the social fabric and the very soul of nations is being cut down.
The French Revolution wiped out the Western aristocracy.
The Industrial Revolution obliterated the peasants and spread the proletarianization which led to the disaster of Socialism and Communism.
The Revolution of ’68 demolished the family and the school.
This Great Reset, desired by the globalist elite, represents the final revolution with which to create a shapeless and anonymous mass of slaves connected to the internet, confined to the house, threatened by an endless series of pandemics designed by those who already have the miraculous vaccine ready.
Precisely in these days, with the harmony of a plan that seems orchestrated in every detail under a single leadership, the imposition of a vaccine is being theorized by many parties, even before the vaccine’s actual effectiveness is fully known, and even before the vaccine’s possible side-effects may be fully ascertained.
This obligation to receive a vaccine is projected by many to occur alongside the issuance by a “health passport,” so that those who have such a passport may move without limitations, while those who refuse a vaccine would not be able to use means of transport, attend restaurants and visit public places, schools and offices.
That this represents an intolerable violation of the individual’s freedoms does not seem to be a problem: law-makers do not hesitate to sack parliaments to impose their tyrannical norms, knowing that their power exists as long as they obey the Great Reset agenda, endorsed by the international institutions such as the European Union and the UN.
Faced with such a massive and coordinated deployment of forces we remain astonished, bewildered by the impudence of those who are telling us, in essence, that we must silently accept the dictatorship of a faceless power group, because that is how the group has decided.
We are disconcerted by the enslavement of the world Left — and of the Democrats in the United States — to this agenda, which knows no limits, no restraints on its execution, to the point of organizing an electoral coup of such magnitude and gravity as to be horrified.
The manual fraud of duplicate ballots, the votes of deceased people, citizens who discover they have voted a thousand times and employees who tamper with the results by obscuring the windows of the polling stations with cardboard panels, is accompanied by the use of a vote-counting apparatus which is proving not only to be open to fraudulent use, but even to have been designed at the software level to allow the shifting of votes from one candidate to another, based on a complex algorithm.
We discover that the people behind this macroscopic fraud are always the same, always of the same political party, always subservient to the same ideology. People corrupt in intellect and will, because they made themselves the slaves of a ruthless tyrant, after refusing to obey a good, just and merciful Lord.
Thus, as these have accepted the slavery of sin and rebellion against God, today they would like to drag the whole of humanity into an abyss of death and despair: it is the miserable revenge of Satan, who, not being able to defeat the One who cast him into hell, tries to drag with him as many souls as possible, in an attempt to frustrate the work of Redemption.
We, believers in Christ Our Only Lord, have no reason to fear, even against all human reason: we know that, reborn in Baptism, we are no longer servants but children of God, and that by preserving the friendship of our Lord with Grace we can trust in Him, in His provident help, in His powerful protection.
Ultimately, this is true freedom: the freedom of the children of God, who obey His law not out of fear but out of love, not out of compulsion but because in adhering to the divine will they will find their own perfect fulfillment and their complete realization. For every soul is created for the greater glory of God, for eternal bliss as a reward of fidelity to the Savior.
Don’t let our hearts be troubled!
The maneuvers of those who work in darkness are coming to light, showing themselves in all their horror and revealing their perverse and infernal matrix. Lies, deceptions, violence, death: this is the harsh reality of evil before which people of good will can only be horrified. If Our Lord deigns to listen to the prayers of His children, this castle of lies and fraud will collapse miserably, and its architects will have to go back into hiding to escape the rigors of justice and the execration of peoples.
These are decisive hours: we continue to pray, to recite the Holy Rosary, to nourish ourselves with the Most Holy Eucharist, to do penance. The choral voice that rises up to the throne of the divine Majesty will not remain unheard.
Let us not be discouraged, because it is in the moment of trial that the Lord gives us the opportunity to show our trust in Him and to see the greatness of His mercy. “Whatsoever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (Jn 14, 13). Our Lord told us clearly: anything.
We therefore ask the Father, in the name of the Son our Lord and Redeemer, through the intercession of His most holy Mother our powerful mediator, to show His glory, to grant the exaltation of Holy Church, peace and prosperity to the Christian peoples, the conversion of sinners, the defeat of His enemies.
“God arises, and his enemies will be scattered, and those who hate him will flee before him” (Psalm 68:1).
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
25 November 2020
St Catherine of Alexandria, Virgin and Martyr
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: 220px-Jaroslav_%C4%8Cerm%C3%A1k_%281831_...%C5%A1.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Jaroslav_%C4%8Cerm%C3%A1k_%281831_-_1878%29_-_Sv._Mikul%C3%A1%C5%A1.jpg/220px-Jaroslav_%C4%8Cerm%C3%A1k_%281831_-_1878%29_-_Sv._Mikul%C3%A1%C5%A1.jpg)
![[Image: 758.jpg]](https://www.catholic.org/files/images/saints/758.jpg)
![[Image: Covid_card_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Covid_card_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
