| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 803 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 800 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Yandex
|
|
|
| January 1st - The Eternal Father, The Circumsion of Our Lord and St. Fulgentius |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-07-2020, 12:05 AM - Forum: January
- No Replies
|
 |
The Eternal Father
The entire life of the Father in the Holy Trinity is to speak His Son, His Word; it is to engender, by a unique, simple and eternal act, a Son resembling Himself, to whom He communicates the plenitude of His Being and His perfections. In this Word, infinite like Himself, in this unique and eternal Word, the Father never ceases to recognize His Son, His own image, the splendor of His glory. This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased. These words, pronounced on Mount Tabor at the time of the Transfiguration, are the greatest revelation God has made to the earth; they are an echo of the very life of the Father. The Father, in His character of Father, lives by engendering His Son; this generation has neither beginning nor end. In eternity we will behold with astonishment, admiration and love, that procession of the Son engendered in the bosom of the Father, procession which is eternal: Thou art My Son; this day I have engendered Thee. The today is the perpetual present of eternity.
It is an excellent thing in the spiritual life to keep before the eyes of the heart, this testimony of the Father; nothing is more powerful to sustain our faith. And let us then say, Yes, Father, I believe it, and I want to repeat it: this Jesus who is in me through faith, through grace, through Holy Communion, is Your Son. Because You have said it, I believe it. And because I believe it, I adore Your Son, to render Him my homage and through Him, in Him, to render to You also, O Heavenly Father, in union with Your Spirit, all honor and all glory. Such a prayer is very agreeable to our Father in heaven; when it is true, pure and frequent, it makes us the object of the Father's love. God envelops us in the complacency which He finds in His own Son Jesus. It is Our Lord Himself who tells us so: The Father loves you, because you have believed that I have come from Him — that I am His Son. What happiness for a soul to be the object of the Father's love, this Father from whom every perfect gift comes down to rejoice hearts!
The Circumcision of Our Lord
Circumcision was a sacrament of the Old Law, and the first legal observance required of the descendants of Abraham by Almighty God. It was a sacrament of initiation in the service of God, and a promise, an engagement, to believe and act as He had revealed and directed. The law of circumcision continued in force until the death of Christ. Our Saviour having thus been born under the law, it became Him who came to teach mankind obedience to the law of God,to fulfill all justice, and to submit to it. He was circumcised that He might redeem those who were under the law, by freeing them from the servitude of it, and that those who were formerly in the condition of servants might be set at liberty and receive the adoption of sons in Baptism, which, by Christ's institution, succeeded to circumcision. (Cf. Gal. 4:5)
On the day when the divine Infant was circumcised, He received the name of JESUS, which was assigned to Him by the Angel before He was conceived, and which signifies SAVIOUR. That name, so beautiful, so glorious, the divine Child does not wish to bear for one moment without fulfilling its meaning. Even at the moment of His circumcision He showed Himself a SAVIOUR by shedding for us that blood of which a single drop is more than sufficient for the ransom and salvation of the whole world.
Saint Fulgentius
Doctor of the Church, Bishop
(468-533)
Born in Africa of illustrious and Catholic parents, Fulgentius was an excellent student of languages and of various other practical disciplines. His father had died while still young, and Fulgentius soon became the support of his mother and younger brother. He was appointed at an early age procurator of his province at Carthage; but this elevation in the world's esteem was distasteful to him, and he was enlightened by the Spirit of God to see the vanity of the world.
At the age of twenty-two, having read Saint Augustine's treatise on the Psalms, he resolved to embrace monastic life, and began to prepare for it by mental prayer, fasting, and other penances practiced in secret. When he was accepted into a monastery by a holy bishop named Faustus, his mother hoped to change his mind; but when she arrived he remained firm and did not accept to see her. Such are the austerities of the Saints, called to accomplish much for God. He later renounced all his goods on behalf of his mother and younger brother.
After six years of peace, his monastery was attacked by Arian heretics, and Faustus, Fulgentius and the other monks were driven out, destitute, into the desert. Fulgentius entered another monastery on his Superior's advice, and there he shared the duties of the Superior, to the latter's great consolation, until that house was attacked by barbarians. In the refuge to which he then repaired he was persecuted, held captive, and tortured by an Arian priest, but sought no vengeance when authorities offered him support if he would enter a complaint. Fulgentius and his Superior, who was with him, decided to build another monastery in the province they had abandoned.
For a time Fulgentius remained there, but he desired solitude and set out on a journey to the holy places of Rome. There the imperial splendors he beheld spoke to him of the greater glory of the heavenly Jerusalem, his final goal. And at the first lull in the persecution, he returned to his African cell in the year 500.
Elected bishop of Ruspe in 508, he was summoned to face new dangers, and was shortly afterwards banished by the Arian king, with some sixty other Catholic prelates, to Sardinia. Though the youngest of the exiles, he became the spokesman of his brethren and the support of their orphaned flocks. By his books and letters, which are still extant, he confounded both Pelagian and Arian heresiarchs, and strengthened the Catholics in Africa and Gaul. He prayed for all his compatriots in exile: You know, Lord, what is most expedient for the salvation of our souls; assist us in our corporal necessities, that we may not lose the spiritual goods. On the death of the Arian king, the bishops returned to their flocks. Saint Fulgentius was welcomed amid the greatest joy, after eighteen years of exile. He labored with his fellow bishops in the synods as their chosen leader, and re-established discipline. When he felt his end was near, he retired to an island monastery, where after a year's preparation he called for his clergy and religious, and with their aid distributed all his goods to the poor. He died in peace in the year 533.
|
|
|
| December 7th - St. Ambrose |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-06-2020, 11:45 PM - Forum: December
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Ambrose
Bishop of Milan and Doctor of the Church
(340-397)
When in the year 369 Saint Ambrose, the young son of a Roman Senator, was sent by Probus, the Prefect of Italy, to the large province of Liguria Emilia in Italy, the officer said to him, Go and act not as a judge, but as a bishop. Ambrose, though not Christian, had already resisted by his probity the corrupting influence of the Roman youth of his day. In Liguria he showed himself to be clement as directed, and his great erudition also became well known to the inhabitants of the region. In the year 374 he was already governor of the province, at the moment when at Milan, in this same region, a bishop was needed for that great see. Since the heretics in Milan were many and fierce, he went to preserve order during the election of the new prelate. Though he was still only a catechumen, it was the Will of God that the provincial governor be chosen by acclamation. Despite his protestations and his subsequent flight from Milan when they were not accepted, he was found, baptized and consecrated for the archiepiscopal see.
Unwearied then in every pastoral duty, full of sympathy and charity, gentle and condescending in matters of indifference, he was inflexible in questions of principle. He manifested his fearless zeal when it was necessary to brave the anger of the Empress Justina, by resisting and foiling her impious attempt to give one of the churches of Milan to the Arians. He distributed all that he had of gold and silver to the poor, and confided all financial administration of his archdiocese to his brother, Saint Satyrus, who came to reside with him in Milan. To master theology, he studied the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church, and conferred with learned Christians concerning the rules of ecclesiastical discipline. He was very active, and took such great care of the catechumens' instruction that no one could surpass him in that duty.
His zeal in rebuking and bringing to penance the great Emperor Theodosius, who in a moment of irritation had cruelly punished a sedition by the inhabitants of Thessalonica, is a well known fact of history. The Saint met him at the door of the cathedral to prevent his entering, and said to him that if he had imitated David in his crime, he must now imitate him in his penance. Later the chastened and humble Emperor said that in his life he had known but one true bishop — Ambrose.
Saint Ambrose was the friend and consoler of Saint Monica in all her sorrows, and in 387 had the joy of admitting to the Church Saint Augustine, her son. He died in 397, full of years and of honors, and is revered by the Church of God as one of her greatest Doctors.
|
|
|
|
| On the New Code of Canon Law: Bp. Fellay vs. Archbp. Lefebvre |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:37 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
 |
Translated and adapted from here.
The New Canon Law code according to Archbishop Lefebvre and according to Bishop Fellay
On the occasion of the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday in Ecône, Bishop Fellay delivered a sermon which seems to us particularly important in the current crisis of the FSSPX and especially in view of the next chapter. The site "La Porte Latine" retranscribed it and gave it this title oh so revealing "Necessary dependence on God and nature of obedience to the Roman authorities." We could not be clearer! But the obedience of which Bishop Fellay speaks is not in the clouds. For the superior of the SSPX, this obedience is embodied in obedience to the new code. And that's the key to his sermon. In this article, we give you some reflections of various reactions that we could find on this question (forum of Fidelity) and especially the words of Mgr Lefebvre about the new code. At the end of the article, you can read again the study that a priest had done on this new code in 2014. This study brings all the nuances on this serious question.
Excerpt from Bishop Fellay's sermon and key passage:
"We seek precisely the intention, why this law, and we know that the final intention, the one that dominates everything, is the salvation of souls.Why are there laws in the Church? and even all the laws in the Church for one thing, save, save souls. and of course that's the great principle, even in the new canon law, it is expressed this principle. But be careful because that it is true that this situation which lasts, and which lasts and which continues, can make bad habits take place. And so we must examine ourselves, we must be careful to put ourselves in this state of dependence of the good God, and also, whenever possible, authorities." (Bishop Fellay, Ecône Thursday-Saint 2018)
On the contrary, what Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1983 on the occasion of the promulgation of the new Code:
[Before one begins to read these great, clear words of the Archbishop, please keep in mind the praise his private theologian at the Second Vatican Council, Fr. Berto, said of him: "Archbishop Lefebvre is a theologian, and by far superior to his own theologian, and God grant that all the [Council] Fathers might be theologians to the same degree as he is! He has a perfectly sure and refined theological habitus, to which his very great devotion to the Holy See adds that connaturality that allows him, even before discursive thinking intervenes, to discern intuitively what is and what is not compatible with the prerogatives of the Rock of the Church." www.thecatacombs.org/thread/99/abl-private-theologian-vatican-ii
In 1983:
"I was reading the new Canon Law these days, which is explicit in the presentation of Canon Law: the new code is made for the purpose of conveying conciliar ecclesiology in a canonical language. does that mean that the new code is designed to put the conciliar ecclesiology into legal and canonical language, so they say a few lines later that this is a novelty. If there is a conciliar ecclesiology, what is it that ecclesiology, suddenly, in 1963 or 4, at the time when the Church was discussed, the Church is suddenly discovered at the Council? Did not the Church exist for 2000 years? Did she never define herself? Did she not know herself? ... is unbelievable! And so the purpose of the new Canon Law is to pass the principles, the spirit - they even speak of the spirit of the Second Vatican Council."
In 1983:
Then, the new Canon Law professes above all collegiality, is it not, in the reports. Collegiality in the relations between churches, local churches and universal churches, and between authorities, between bishops and the pope. Well, in the new Law, there are two supreme powers of the Church. There is the power of the pope who has the supreme power, and then the pope with the bishops.
In 1983:
For lack of time, I am unfortunately limited to brief indications, but it is certain that the statements of the Council, like the practical guidelines for the ministry of the Church, find in the new Code, exact and punctual correspondences. I would only like to invite you to try to compare Lumen Gentium Chapter III with Book II of the Code. "
In 1983:
" Blind obedience is a contradiction and no one is exempt from responsibility for obeying men rather than God. It's too easy to say: - Me, I obey. If he is mistaken, well I am wrong with him ... But as said Mgr - I prefer to be wrong with the pope, than to be in the truth against the pope! ... So, we must translate this: - I prefer to be against Our Lord Jesus Christ with the Pope, rather than being with Our Lord Jesus Christ against the Pope! ... It's stupid! ... We are for Our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, in the As the pope is really the vicar of Christ and acts as vicar of Christ, and gives us the light of Christ, we are of course ready to close our eyes and follow him everywhere. But since this light is no longer that of Our Lord Jesus Christ,Everything is new, new code of canon law, new missal ... everything is new, new ecclesiology - it does not go anymore, that ... This resistance must be public if the evil is public and is an object of scandal, that's what Saint Thomas says."
In 1983:
"It is marked in the speech of the pope, in the constitution which presents the new code of canon law, It is itself who says these things." People of God, Communion, Service, Collegiality, Ecumenism. characteristics of the new ecclesiology of Vatican II, it is clear that it is the continuation of the work that was done by Vatican II in the liturgy, in the catechisms and in the Bible, the ecumenical Bible, the famous TOB, Ecumenical Translation of the Bible. So what do we need to think of this? Well, it's that this canon law is unacceptable. There is no new Ecclesiology in the Church. We are not going to give a new definition to the Church, if ... So we were wrong for 2000 years. The Church did not know what it was for 2000 years. Suddenly, it has become ecumenism, collegiate, communion. Communion of what, who, with whom, with what? "
In 1983:
"Take, for example, the fact that the new law no longer requires a mixed Protestant Catholic household to sign a pledge that children will be baptized Catholics is a serious breach of faith, a serious violation of the faith (.. Previously, the law required that there be a written undertaking by both spouses, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, to have the children baptized in the Catholic religion, otherwise the marriage could not take place. the Church. "
In 1983:
"Another thing that touches the faith in the new canon law is to be able to give this Eucharistic hospitality as they have called it in an improbable way, we can call here a sacrilege in the final, Eucharistic hospitality: A Protestant provided that he believes in the real presence according to the Catholic faith can receive Holy Communion.
++++
Quote:Study of Abbe Du Châtelet on the new code (published in 2014)
The new 1983 Code is the result of two sources: a legitimate evolution of the discipline and the innovative principles that were already being felt before the Second Vatican Council.
Evolution of discipline
In 1986, Father Coache, Doctor of Canon Law, published the results of his studies on Canon Law in two parts: Initiation to Canon Law, already published between 1958 and 1960, and Commentaries on the New Code (from 1983). ). These are the reasons why he thought it necessary to revise the 1917 Code:
"For it was necessary to update the canon law; it is obvious that the Church is alive and the discipline must change according to the times, places and evolution of humanity. (...) The Jesuit Father Regatillo published in 1953 a large book of 720 pages to interpret (after official answers from Rome), complete or correct a large number of guns since the publication of the Code. Annoting myself this book, from 1953 to 1965, I completed it on a large number of pages because of the new laws, various decrees and precisions of the Roman Congregations published during these twelve years. Pius XII, by himself, has largely advanced the law by his speeches and his decrees, in liturgical matters for example. It was therefore necessary that one day or another the Code be updated.
"Moreover, the Code of Canon Law, despite the excellence of the work accomplished under St. Pius X and Benedict XV and despite its remarkable qualities, is not perfect. It contains obscurities, some contradictions of detail, and, above all, a much too complex complexity, especially in view of the canonical impediments to marriage and ecclesiastical penalties; a simplification was therefore desirable "(Abbé Coache, Is the canon law amiable? pp. 218-219).
Innovative principles
The main reason for the recasting of the Code is to be found in the Second Vatican Council. We read indeed in the Apostolic Constitution promulgating the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1983:
"What constitutes the essential novelty of the Second Vatican Council in continuity with the legislative tradition of the Church, especially with regard to ecclesiology, is also the novelty of the new Code (§ 21). "
"Among the elements that characterize the real and authentic image of the Church, we must highlight the following:
"- the doctrine according to which the Church presents itself as the people of God (see Const. Lumen Gentium, 2) and the hierarchical authority as service (see ibid 3);
"- the doctrine which shows the Church as a communion and which, therefore, indicates what kinds of reciprocal relations must exist between the particular Church and the universal Church and between collegiality and primacy;
"- the doctrine according to which all the members of the people of God, each according to his modality, participate in the triple function of Christ: the priestly, the prophetic and the royal functions. To this doctrine is connected that concerning the duties and the rights of the faithful and in particular of the laity;
"And finally the commitment of the Church in ecumenism (§ 22). "
"It remains to be hoped that the new canon law will become an effective means for the Church to progress in the spirit of Vatican II (§ 27). "
Ecumenism
Outside the Church, means of salvation - According to the principles of Vatican II, there are, outside the Catholic Church, structures and means of salvific (see previous article).
"This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him" (1983 Code, 204 § 2).
Now "this Church" is, according to the first paragraph of this canon 204, the people of God: "The faithful of Christ (...) are constituted as people of God". The faithful of Christ and therefore the Church of Christ would remain in the Catholic Church and would not be identical to it! This is one of the major mistakes of the Council.
As a result Protestants and Orthodox, as it is said in various parts of the Code (eg Can. 844 and 1124 mentioned below) would have no other reproach to be done than to be "in full communion" With the Catholic Church. If they are not in the Catholic Church, they would not be outside the Church of Christ. The reason for this is that "many elements of sanctification and truth remain outside its structures, elements which, properly owned by God's gift to the Church of Christ, call for Catholic unity by themselves" (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 8). [See Fr. Hesse's comments about this section of Lumen Gentium here].
What remains of the dogma of faith: "Outside the Catholic Church no salvation"? What path can those who submit to this new law take?
[u]Around the sacraments [/u]
The Church, faithful to tradition, has always refused to give the sacraments to those who are not Catholics. They must first reject their mistakes: "It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even if they are in good faith and ask them, before, having rejected their errors, they are reconciled with the Church "(Code of 1917, 731).
Everything else is the spirit of the new Code: no prior rejection of schism or heresy is required. It is enough to hold true the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning such sacraments and to be well disposed to it. But how can the doctrine of the Church be held true if we do not have the Catholic faith? How to be supernaturally well-disposed - what is necessary for salvation - without the foundation faith of all supernatural life? Moreover, to have "faith" only in these sacraments without believing all the truths which the Church teaches as revealed by God is to question and reject the authority of God who reveals these truths; it is to remain in the path of perdition. In addition, allowing the reception of the sacraments in these conditions opens the door to all sacrilege. Let's read: "In case of danger of death or if,
We must note the same breach of faith in the other direction: Catholics have every facility to receive the sacraments of non-Catholic ministers.
It is the ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council applied in the concrete of everyday life. All these official laws will lead little by little to the loss of faith. What a responsibility before God for those who promulgated them and for those who apply them!
On Marriage
The Church is attentive to the good of faith which is first; it passes before the good of marriage and founds it: "The Church," says the Code of 1917, "forbids everywhere very strictly a marriage to be concluded between two baptized persons, one of whom is a Catholic, the other enrolled in a heretical or schismatic sect "(mixed marriage). And pointing out the importance of faith for salvation, this canon continues: "If there is danger of perversion of the Catholic spouse and children, such a union is also prohibited by divine law itself" (Can. ). God forbids these marriages as soon as there is danger for the faith!
The new Code no longer knows this divine prohibition: mixed marriage is only "prohibited without the express permission of the competent authority". The reason is that the non-Catholic party is no longer a danger for the Catholic party, since it lacks only "full communion with the Catholic Church" (can 1124).
The Church, however, can give an exemption to this kind of union. The 1917 Code sets out precise and demanding conditions: "urgent", "just and serious" reasons are needed; the catholic spouse must give "the guarantee of averting the danger of perversion of the Catholic spouse" and the two spouses must give "that to baptize all their children and to assure them the only Catholic education"; in addition, there must be "the moral certainty that these guarantees will be executed"; these must be written (can 1061).
The new Code requires only promises from the Catholic side and still weakly:
"The Catholic party will declare that it is ready to ward off the dangers of abandoning the faith and sincerely promise to do its utmost (no more!) To that all children be baptized and educated in the Catholic Church ". The other party will only be "informed in time of these promises to be made by the Catholic party, so that it is established that it really knows the promise and obligation of the Catholic party"; nothing is required of her; for nothing, what will it impose? ... (can 1125).
This applies to weddings with disparity of worship (with a Muslim for example) (can 1129)!
When we measure the importance of the pure faith of any alloy for the education of the baptized within families, we discover how this new Code opposes the Catholic faith and the honor due to God. He hurls souls into the path of perdition ...
Democracy
At Vatican II, the innovators defined the Church as "people of God". This idea obsesses them if one judges by the insistence to consider each part of the Church like people of God: the diocese, the prelature (or the abbey) territorial, the vicariate (or the prelature) apostolic and the apostolic administration are each "a definite portion of the people of God" (1983 Code, 369-371).
The egalitarian and democratic spirit tends to diminish the difference between clerics and lay people, between pope and bishops, between bishops and priests, between men and women. The following will show it.
The Church is "people of God" - These are not just words.
- Powers are given to the people. Since the Church is a people of God, each member participates in the triple power given by Jesus Christ to the apostles (to teach, to baptize, to command): "The faithful of Christ are those who, as incorporated into Christ through baptism, are constituted as a people of God and who, for this reason, are participating in their own way in the priestly, prophetic and royal function of Christ, are called to exercise, each according to his own condition, the mission that God has entrusted to the Church for to do it in the world "(204 § 1).
In contradiction with all tradition, powers and mission are thus given first to the people and not first (and exclusively) to the hierarchy. It is not true that the faithful are in charge of exercising "the mission that God has entrusted to the Church" nor that they have received the powers to this end. Jesus Christ did not say to everyone but to the Apostles alone: "All power has been given to me on earth. Go, teach all the nations, baptize them ... and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you "(Mt 28:19).
Consequently, the hierarchy, placed in second rank, is diminished, obliterated. It is still shown as follows.
- The hierarchy comes from the people. Indeed, after the general norms, the Code begins a second book entitled "The people of God". This first deals with the faithful of Christ, their rights and obligations. It is only in the third part that he deals with clerics or sacred ministers. The 1917 Code orders things to take place: in the book "People", after the general rules concerning them, the Code deals first with clerics, then with religious, and lastly with laity. The new Code reverses the pyramid.
- Moreover, the clerics are taken "among the faithful", no doubt because of a "divine institution", but the first thing that remains is the equality between the two: "By divine institution, there is in the Church, among the faithful, the sacred ministers who in law are called clerics, and the others who are called laymen "(Can., 207).
In short, the faithful are constituted as a people of God, empowered and charged with mission (can., 204); clerics are taken from among the faithful (can. finally, because of baptism, there exists among all the faithful "as to dignity and activity, a true equality by virtue of which all cooperate in the edification of the Body of Christ, according to the proper condition and function of each person. (Can 208).
It is obvious that the whole law will be affected by this egalitarianism. This false spirit infects all the Code and vitiates it at the root.
This is why R. Paralieu can quietly write: "by treating, under the same title, Christians in general, the faithful and then the clergy, there is already in the new canon law a reversal of the ecclesiological perspectives" (Practical Guide of the Code of Canon Law, Tardy, 1985, 93).
And a serious thing for the life of the Church, this egalitarianism poses an obstacle to the passage of grace. Indeed, by the divine institution, grace passes through the hierarchy and descends to the faithful. If we overthrow the pyramid, where could grace pass? (Archbishop Lefebvre's conference in Ecône in 1986) Would not submitting to this Code be suicidal?
Rights of the faithful and dignity of man
- The rights of the faithful are very numerous as they should be in a democratic society: the right to missionary activity proper (canons 211 and 216); to give their opinion on the good of the Church (Can 212); to spiritual goods (213); to worship according to their rites and to follow their own form of spiritual life (Can. Christian education (Can., 217); to claim their rights before ecclesiastical authority (Canon 221); etc.
The laity have very extensive functions. Lay people are invited to acquire and teach the sacred sciences (229). They are admitted to the ministries of reader and acolyte, can "preside at liturgical prayers", baptize (can. 230) and attend weddings (can. 1112). They (women not excluded) can give communion or bring it to the sick (can., 230, 910 and 911). A layman can exhibit the Blessed Sacrament (can 943) and even be part of the ecclesiastical courts (can 1421) (even a woman, since the Code does not exclude it)! Lay people can preach (can., 230 and 766). This is the opposite of the old Code which forbade it (can 1342).
- The rights of the human person are part of the doctrine to be taught. The Church must teach the principles of morality and "make a judgment on every human reality to the extent that the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls require" (Can., 747). And the rights of God? The preachers of the divine word "will also communicate to the faithful the doctrine taught by the magisterium of the Church on the dignity and freedom of the human person" (Can., 768).
Collegiality
The Code reproduces the error of the Council on the double head (Pope and College) as the subject of the supreme power: "The College of Bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose Bishops are the members by virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion between the chief and the members of the College, in which the apostolic body is perpetuated, is also in union with its head and never without him, subject of the supreme and full power over the whole Church "(can. 336).
Democracy in the Mass
Without resuming the contested definition of the new Mass, the new Code goes in the same democratic spirit: "In the Eucharistic Synaxis, the people of God are convened in assembly under the presidency of the Bishop or priest under the authority of the Bishop, acting in the person of Christ, and all the faithful who attend, clergy or laity, contribute to it by taking an active part, each according to his own mode ... "(Can 899 § 2).
Democracy in marriage
The new Code defines marriage as "a community of all life" ordered primarily "for the good of the spouses" and only "as well as for the generation and upbringing of children" (Canon 1055). The 1917 Code, precise, says: "The first end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary end is mutual help and the cure for concupiscence "(Can 1013).
By insisting more on the welfare of the spouses than on the generation, it is not difficult for this Code to affirm that the equality of the spouses extends to the whole community of married life: "Every spouse has equal duty and rights. with regard to the community of married life "(1135). This is not at all in keeping with the tradition expressed by the 1917 Code. The latter recognizes equality only with regard to conjugal acts: "An equal right and duty belong from the beginning of marriage to everyone. spouses with respect to the acts proper to conjugal life "(Canon 1111). For the rest the woman is subject to her husband: "Unless otherwise determined by a special right, the woman becomes a participant in the husband's state, for all canonical effects" (can 1112) .
As for the penalties
In this regard, Father Coache highlights the change of spirit of the new Code: the transition from the primacy of the object to the primacy of the subject.
"If the preceding law is much less broad than the new one, it must be said, remembered and emphasized that it is just as merciful; the difference comes from the method which seems to us really defective in the modern Right, and always because of the same spirit: lessening of the sense of the authority, the sin, constant need to defend the man against the law to pretend to safeguard his dignity . Traditional law establishes the law - and thus, in criminal law, criminal law - with clarity, objectivity; the law marks and specifies the sanctions for the committed crimes, explaining in a rather clear way what are the external causes which can excuse of the sentence (for example the age below puberty, drunkenness in some cases, the external violence ...) or even inner causes that are easily judgeable (eg. ignorance of the law or punishment); traditional law is therefore objective; but beside this he multiplies the rules, the principles and the counsels which lead to indulgence in the interpretation or the application of the law (eg canons 2218, 2219, 2223, etc.).
"On the contrary, the new Law, to free - wrongly - the subject of the law or intervention (even benevolent) of the Superior, multiplies the cases or situations where the offender is safe from punishment, but so subjective that the law can no longer be found there ("serious relative fear", "influence of a necessity", "serious inconvenience", "chance that one could not have foreseen" (sic) or still "belief that one of these circumstances presents itself"!); there is no more judgment possible; it is no longer law, it's romance or marshmallow! With such principles there are no more applicable sanctions; it is no longer goodness or mercy, nor even benevolence towards the culprit, but paradoxically mockery, if not complicity. (Abbot Coache, Is Canon Law Friendly?
Judgments
From Father Coache
"There is a New Canon Law as there is a New Religion, New Priests and a New Mass. This New Canon Law, published in 1983, is the emanation of the New Religion in what it has official; apparently he brakes or reproves the excesses of a whole post-conciliar spirit; however, it also crystallizes an entire spirit from the Second Vatican Council, gathering and codifying the authorizations, laws and decrees published since the Council. (Is Canon Law Friendly? 215)
"Does this new canon law oblige? Certainly not, by virtue of this principle, that error has no right and that it is better to obey God than men. A document like this, even if it is official, when it is tainted from one end to the other by a obviously false mind and by a certain number of laws which contradict Faith and Tradition, has no legal value. It can not be a document of the Church since the Church can not be rediscovered in her eternal Truth; there is not there, in this judgment on our part, "free examination", but a simple statement of human reason; the leaders of the Church, the Pope himself, are bound by Faith and Tradition; if they derogate from it, they condemn themselves and their actions are worthless. This is a finding and a conclusion. Theologians will try to explain.
From Archbishop Lefebvre
"The new Code is designed to bring conciliar ecclesiology into legal and canonical language. (...)
"And so the purpose of the new Canon Law is to make (...) pass the spirit of Vatican Council II. And this spirit of the Second Vatican Council is dominated by this ecumenism, because the new ecclesiology is constructed, is forged on the Protestant ideas to avoid the objections of the Protestants. Protestants can not support the primacy of the pope, so we tried to drown the primacy of the pope, the superiority of the pope, in collegiality. And you now have two subjects of supreme power. Go and understand something ... How can there be two subjects of supreme power? ... "(Archbishop Lefebvre, Ecône, January 18, 1983)
"Then we will have to keep the old Canon Law, taking the fundamental principles and comparing it with the new Canon Law to judge the new Canon Law. Just as we take Tradition to judge also the new liturgical books. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ecône, March 14, 1983)
"It is impossible for us to accept the Canon Law as it stands, because it is precisely in the line of Vatican II and in line with the reforms of Vatican II. The pope himself says so. He is in this new ecclesiology, which does not correspond to traditional ecclesiology and therefore indirectly affects our faith, and is likely to lead us, at least in a number of essential points of law, to heresies, favoring heresy. , like the liturgical reform that promotes heresy too. That is why we refuse liturgical reform too. (...) It's the same for catechisms, new catechisms. We refuse new catechisms because they diminish our faith. "
To base his judgment, Archbishop Lefebvre quotes Professor Michiels and concludes:
"The foundation of the supernatural life which is given over to the Church, entrusted to the Church, its foundation, is faith. Then one realizes that the duty of the Law will be to determine all that regards the faith. So the Law (...) will therefore make that faith be preached, explained, will show how it is to be received, by catechumens in particular, will determine the exercise of faith, the outward profession of faith, the defense of faith and his revenge, as it were, his defense against those who would attack the faith. All of this, the Law must do it, the Canons must express it. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ecône, March 15, 1983)
Practical decisions within the Society of Saint Pius X (note: one year after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre!)
This new Code, to say the least doubtful, does not oblige. Thus, the 1917 Code is based on principles (doctrine and morals). However, in certain particular areas, such as canonical censorship and impediments to marriage, certain measures of the new Code are retained. They are retained, not because of their belonging to this Code which does not oblige, but for extrinsic reasons, as are a legitimate evolution of the discipline (pointed out by the abbot Coache) and the good of the souls.
Let us therefore be deeply attached to the law of God and not to the ravings of the innovators: "Blessed is the man who did not walk in the counsel of the wicked, who does not stand in the way of sinners and who does not sit in the pulpit, but whose will is in the law of God, and meditates day and night (Psalm 1).
Abbot Olivier du Châtelet
|
|
|
|
| January 2018: SSPX Lays Groundwork for Pontifical Recognition |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:21 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- Replies (1)
|
|
From the Archived Catacombs:
New Article coming from the Menzingen General House priming the General Chapter -- mascots ABL to push roman thought.
The theme: "The Society of St. Pius X must seek pontifical recognition..."
Law is the principle concern and the faith is optional to put in the chaos of the conciliar Vatican.
Object: Get peoples mind off of the pre-1988 Menzingen to dwell on the 2018 conciliar Menzingen.
This is a reminder Bishop Fellay already set the stage and unveiled the new change of structure for the neo-sspx here thecatacombs.org/thread/335/bishop-fellay-unveils-sspx-prelature
For them, there is no going back.
Quote:Source: FSSPX.news
Jan. 16. 2018
What will happen at the General Chapter of the Fraternity of St. Pius X?
From July 11 to 21, will be held the fourth General Chapter of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.
Many Catholics are worried about the evolution of the Vatican. The discussions around the post-synodal exhortation Amoris laetitia or the attacks on priestly celibacy in the perspective of the announced synod on the Amazon leave the faithful perplexed.
Cardinals stand against other cardinals, bishops against bishops. Not many Catholics of good will today recognize that Archbishop Lefebvre was right. That is why the eyes of many - even outside the ranks of traditionalists - are turning to the General Chapter.
The Bulletin of the District of Germany met with the Secretary General of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, Father Christian Thouvenot, in charge of the preparation of the Chapter.
Mitteilungsblatt: We would like to inform the faithful of the progress of the 2018 General Chapter. Could you begin by introducing yourself and explaining your role at the General House?
Christian Thouvenot: I have been a priest since the year 2000 and has been Secretary General since 2008. My job is to follow the correspondence of the General House with the seminaries and the districts, as well as with the members, to keep to day the files of the members priests, brothers, oblates and seminarians. I take care of the register of the deliberations of the General Council and transmit its decisions to the superiors concerned. I also take care of the archives and the communication of the Fraternity.
The Brotherhood is led by a Superior General, assisted by two Assistants, all three elected?
Indeed, the Brotherhood is led by three superiors elected for a twelve-year term. Their attributions concern the smooth running of the fraternity, the organization of the apostolate, the nominations throughout the world, etc. They must be careful, according to the Statutes, to maintain and increase in the hearts of all members "a great generosity, a deep spirit of faith, an ardent zeal in the service of the Church and souls". They have their home in Menzingen, where they can rest between two apostolic races but also work, pray, study ...
The Brotherhood has had a good growth in recent years. You published some statistics recently. Can you tell us more?
The Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X is growing slowly but steadily. Everywhere, the works need support and renewal of their strengths. That is why it is important to always ask and pray for many priestly and religious vocations, especially many holy priests.
Let's come to the Chapter ...
Next July will be held the fourth General Chapter of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. This meeting is important since it elects the major superiors for twelve years, and verifies if the Society remains faithful to its statutes and its spirit. It is an opportunity to take stock of the apostolate, the development of the works, the life of community, the means of sanctification of the members. It will take place at the seminary Saint-Pie X, in Ecône. It brings together all the superiors of districts and seminaries, the bishops, as well as the oldest members. It will be preceded by a priestly retreat to prepare well.
What is the task of a Chapter?
As I told you, the Chapter aims to elect major superiors and verify the application of the statutes. On the occasion of the Chapter, all the members were able to write to the General Secretariat to express their opinion, their wishes or to express their difficulties. All these opinions will be the subject of summaries and discussions in the Chapter.
Who can be elected Superior General?
Can be elected any member priest, aged at least thirty years and having pronounced his perpetual engagement in the Fraternity. This represents a list of eligible 462 names! The Superior General is elected by a 2/3 majority, and the Assistants by an absolute majority of votes. The elections, in which the 41 capitulants take part, are held in secret ballots.
The statutes drafted by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre provide that the Superior General must seek the pontifical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X. Will the question of a personal Prelature be discussed?
Indeed, our statutes provide that the fraternity makes "the necessary steps to become of pontifical right". This was the concern of Archbishop Lefebvre, against the unjust and illegal suppression of the Brotherhood in 1975, and at the time of the proposals of canonical recognition he formulated in 1987. But this question of our legal status is a consequence of the abnormal situation of the Church and the bad trial that is done to us. We are Roman Catholics, deeply united with the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church, but in the Catholic faith. We follow the pope, vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter, not Luther or Lamennais. We recognize the magisterium, the authority of the Roman Pontiff and Councils, but in the continuity of Tradition, not in the novelties that corrupt the faith, the liturgy and the doctrine of the Church.
To answer your question, it is likely that the question of personal Prelature status will be asked at the Chapter. But it is the Superior General alone who leads the Fraternity and who is responsible for the relations of Tradition with the Holy See. Archbishop Lefebvre, in 1988, wanted to clarify this aspect.
In your opinion, what are the other important themes for the life of the Fraternity to which the General Chapter will have to respond?
The Chapter will examine all aspects of daily life, check the management of the property, will certainly address the issues of recruitment, perseverance, schools, missions, development of works and the application of the statutes in our communities .
The heart of the fraternity is the seminaries. What problems arise and need to be solved? You were previously in higher education, so you had to deal with students ...
The seminars are indeed at the heart of the life of the Fraternity, which is primarily a work of restoration of the Catholic priesthood, and therefore training to give the Church the priests it so badly needs. The priority is to provide a good level of training, and therefore to have a competent faculty. Which must also be able to accompany the vocations so that they climb one by one the steps of the altar and cultivate the priestly virtues.
The Sisters of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X also have their General Chapter this year ...
The Sisters of the Society of St. Pius X will effectively hold their own Chapter in the spring. They serve magnificently alongside priests and their religious life brings a lot to priory and schools where they are dedicated.
What can the faithful do for the Chapter?
The faithful are invited to pray now for the intentions of the Chapter, and more broadly for the development of the Fraternity as a work of Church, as its venerated founder has desired. In particular, I think of the members of the Third Order who share more closely our spirit and our intentions, who often dedicate themselves in the priory and bring daily suffrage of their prayers to this providential work.
|
|
|
|
| 2016: Bp. Fellay Unveils Personal Prelature |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:16 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
From the Archived Catacombs:
Bishop Fellay unveiled, in part, his agreement with conciliar rome in two public venues: Aug. 24, 2016 Conference in New Zealand, and March 3, 2017 Sermon in Poland.
Between the two, in his own words, here is what he said:
- Rome is offering us a new structure, a new body, to correspond precisely to our reality.
- And what is our reality? There are priests, bishops, faithful, we have priors, schools, seminaries, and what Rome wants to do is to give us a structure that contains all this. Like a diocese.
- The name given to this reality is a personal prelature.
- But the reality is much better than what we find in canon law or what exists for the opus Dei. Because Opus Dei has no right to have a bishop. It is only at the Pope's pleasure to decide whether or not he gives him a bishop.
- For us, it is determined, it is written.
- At its head will be a bishop, chosen by the Pope from a list of three Society members, named by the Society.
- The Bishop will have authority over priests, over any religious wanting to join the new structure and over Catholics belonging to the new structure.
- It is also planned that the other bishops of the Fraternity will be auxiliary bishops in this Prelature. And everything that currently exists will be recognized worldwide.
- And the faithful too! They will be in this prelature with an absolute right to receive from Society priests all the sacraments and teachings, including marriage.
- The bishop will be able to set up schools and seminaries, to ordain (priests), to establish new religious Congregations.
- And it will also be possible to receive religious congregations, as in the dioceses: Capuchins, Benedictines, and all the others, Carmelites, everything.
- The structure will be like a super-diocese, independent of all local bishops. This is a Christian reality which is not under the authority of the bishops. It is autonomous. So, really, it's a very important thing."
- In other words, for you faithful, there will be no change from what you are already enjoying with the Society.
- The only difference will be that you will be officially recognized as Catholics.
- It is not a trap! As things stand you cannot imagine anything better than this offer, which is such that you cannot think it is a trap. It is not a trap , and if anyone makes us such an offer it can only be because he wishes us well. He wants Tradition to prosper and to flourish within the Church. It is impossible that such an offer could come from our enemies. They have many other ways to crush us, but not that way.
----------------------------------------------------
Bishop Fellay's remarks call for comment:
- A “new structure, a new body” means that Archbishop Lefebvre’s structure
for the Society will, essentially, be abandoned. Rome is creating a
completely new entity. Good-bye, dear SSPX.
- A “bishop chosen by the Pope” is extremely important. And the head of the “new structure” will presumably go on being chosen by the Pope. Ask the Fraternity of St Peter what that means. It meant in the 1990’s their own choice of Superior General being overridden by Rome, so that Rome’s own choice was forcibly installed (Fr. A. D.), to bring St Peter’s to heel.
- Note also how this bishop will be able “to ordain (priests)” but not
bishops. Rome will thus retain the whip-hand over the new entity.
- “There will be no change”? But of course there will! Rome will henceforth be in control.
- “You will be officially recognized” – but what Catholic needs any
recognition by such destroyers of the Church from her present
neo-modernist officials? Any such recognition can only be a bad sign.
- "You will receive the sacraments and teachings from the society priests" But what Sacraments and teachings? Already there are mergings of the traditional sacraments with the novus ordo and acceptances of Vatican II teaching.
- “Not a trap . . .”? This whole paragraph is truly remarkable." Need say more?
What is missing is the Faith! Where is it? It is not mentioned nor protected!
Notice how Bishop Fellay prefaces all his correspondence in the motto "Take us as we are"? The question is, what is your faith and conviction presently to take?
Bishop Fellay openly stated he already accepted and agreed to:
- The new and entire 1983 Code of Canon law.
- The new Profession of faith by Vatican II.
- The legitimacy of the novus ordo "ordinary mass".
- "Lumen Gentium" of the Second Vatican Council [in part is to whole].
- "95% acceptance" of Vatican II.
- Vatican II “deepens” and “enlightens” certain aspects of Church doctrine.
- “Religious Liberty of the Council is limited”.
- “The errors of the Council are not really from the Council but from the general interpretation of it.”
Vatican II Council is only “tainted with errors”.
But all's good...because they can "convert" the modernists inside the conciliar church through the modernist doctrines. As it is, Bishop Fellay wants his followers to believe, in his claim, the Crisis is "Recessing".
The hoax of the personal prelature is clear. It is to:
* Bury the SSPX and the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.
* Make the legal transformation of the SSPX into a conciliar work.
* Use it as a platform to promote the conciliar revolution.
* Stop the fight of Catholic Tradition; the enemy of modernism.
There is no respect when God is not respected.
But hasn't this been tried with the other 9-traditional communities going into modern Rome? Yes, and all to a foolish failure to where, as expected, they where converted into conciliarist thought.
And the recent example of the Franciscans of the Immaculata (here, here, here, here, and here)...all squashed under the pope who is benevolent, says Bishop Fellay, "it is not a trap".
Archbishop Lefebvre said "An inferior is not above his Superior". As with, in "A Letter from Archbishop Lefebvre, regarding Indult Masses":
“It is evident that by putting themselves in the hands of the current conciliar authorities, they are implicitly accepting the Council and the ensuing reforms, even if they have received some privileges which remain exceptional and provisory.”
What is the reason of the personal prelature?
Father Pfeiffer explains it well here: cor-mariae.com/index.php?threads/in-london-with-german-translation-partial-transcription.5949/
But there is more.
Here is a very good commentary of what a "Personal Prelature" is for the new sspx in contrast from the FSSP's "Society of Apostolic Life with Pontifical Right" from a member Order inside the Ecclesia Dei, Brother JR, FFV, the Superior General of the order "Franciscans of Life" (Fratres Franciscani Vitae): forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=685495&highlight=do+dioceses+give+money+to+the+vatican?
Quote:"Obviously, most are not exactly sure what a prelature is or does.
...A prelature is not a reward. Do you really know the circumstances of a prelature? I would rather be an FSSP [Fraternity of St. Peter] than belong to a prelature.
A prelature is governed directly by the pope. The FSSP is not governed by the pope. They have their own superior general.
The prelature will have statutes and constitutions handed to it by the Vatican. Prelatures do not get to write their own statutes, as do societies of apostolic life and religious communities. The statutes are written at the Vatican, given to the prelate to comment, edited, if the prelate has something good to contribute and then sent to the pope for final approval. He issues the constitution of the prelature. The FSSP writers its own statutes, votes on them and sends a copy to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The Sacred Congregation reviews the constitution to ensure that it meets all the requirements of Canon Law and that there is no doctrinal error in it. The Sacred Congregation does not care if the constitution says that you will dance around the altar for morning and evening prayer, since such an action does not violate canon law, dogma or morals. They sign off on it and send it back to the Superior General of the FSSP. The SSPX will be in a closer relationship with the Holy Father, but it also has to make sure to cross its tees and dot its eyes.
The FSSP gets to elect its superior general. A prelature does not get to elect the prelate. The prelate is appointed by the pope. Remember the word, "personal prelature". The personal refers to the pope. You're stuck with the prelate that the pope appoints. He can appoint any bishop, not just an SSPX bishop.
The FSSP does not have to own property; therefore, it does not have to raise funds to maintain and insure their property. The FSSP hires itself out to a diocese or a religious community who provide the property. If the collection plate is not enough to fix the leaky rood, the owner of the proper, usually the diocese, will bail them out with a loan or just pick up the tab. The prelature owns all of its buildings and is financially responsible for them. It gets no financial support from the diocese. If it needs to borrow from a bank, the diocese does not serve as its cosigner.
The prelature can have its own seminary. So can the FSSP. No difference there.
The FSSP has to ask for permission to enter a diocese, so does the prelature.
The FSSP does not have ordinary jurisdiction over those who attend their mass or belong to their parish. That jurisdiction belongs to the bishop where the person resides. This is a good thing. The FSSP is not responsible for the salvation of their souls. If these folks follow the wide road, because the priest suggested it, the person goes to heaven, regardless of what he did, because he was obeying. The priest may not be so lucky and neither will the bishop for allowing it to happen, provided he knows. However, the FSSP is not accountable, only the priest involved. The prelature has ordinary authority over the laity. Guess who is morally responsible for the laity . . . bingo! The prelature, not the local bishop, not the FSSP.
The FSSP is a society of Pontifical Right. This means that it has the same right of exemption as I do. Bishops cannot discipline a member of the FSSP. The laity has no right to comment or voice an opinion on anything that happens with the FSSP, unless it directly affects them. Remotely does not count. Directly we mean that the FSSP priest is being ugly to you. If the FSSP priests decide to have happy hour every day, that does not directly affect the laity, even though it may be shocked. That's a problem for the superior of the FSSP. If the SSPX decides to have a happy hour and there are complaints, the prelate has to deal with them and he has to inform the pope. The superior general of the FSSP does not have to report to the pope, unless the pope calls him in.
A prelature is like a diocese without physical boundaries. It certainly has many other boundaries and a lot more oversight from the Vatican.
The key here is that if Pope [Francis] truly did say that this is the only way to come back into the Church and the SSPX rejects it, we may be facing a schism, depending on how the Holy Father takes the rejection.
====================================
This is another misunderstanding. No community is allowed to refuse its members permission to celebrate the OF in principle. This was not just for the FSSP. The Franciscans of the Immaculate wanted to insert the same thing into their constitution and were told that it was unlawful to do so. The logic is that no community has the authority to command what the Church requires or prohibit what the Church allows in spiritual and sacramental matters. Even orders that have their own rite: Carmelite, Dominican, Carthusian and orders that have their own forms of the Latin Rite: Franciscan, Augustinian, Benedictine, Jesuit cannot prohibit the OF in the way that it is prescribed in the GIRM. What we are allowed to do is to decide that we will use this or that form for our conventual mass, not we cannot tell our priests that they cannot celebrate the OF. The conventual mass does not apply to the FSSP, because they are secular Catholics.
In the case of the EF, religious superiors and superiors of societies of apostolic life can prohibit it. Constitutions can prohibit it, because the EF is not the norm for the Latin Church as long as the pope says that it is extraordinary. The Pauline mass is the normal form of worship. Therefore, it cannot be prohibited. They can agree not to celebrate it. They cannot make it proper law. None of us can do that.
It was not the pope who intervened. It was the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. All constitutions are reviewed by the Sacred Congregation to make sure that they do not violate law or doctrine. Many times, when people say, "The pope. . ." it's really a prefect acting in the name of the pope. Prefects have that authority.
==============================
Q. Yes religious who are of pontifical right get to write their own constitutions and elect their superior yet both of those need the approval of the pope to go into effect.
A. Not quite. I'm a superior general and I know. The constitutions are reviewed by the Sacred Congregation for the reasons that I stated above. The Holy Father does not see them. When the Sacred Congregation agrees to approve the constitution, it sends a letter to the pope asking for his endorsement. All the letter says it that it has reviewed the constitution and found no doctrinal errors or canonical violations and it asks to pope to kindly promulgate the constitution. The pope signs the paper and sends it back. We get that paper sent back to us. Popes do not have time to read constitutions of religious communities or societies nor are they interested in doing so.
===============================
The FSSP operates within the diocese; whereas the SSPX is its own jurisdiction. This presents a problem for things like getting married or placing your child in a Catholic school. In many places you must belong to the diocese and you must prove it with a letter from your pastor. An FSSP pastor can grant such a letter. The SSPX priest can only say that you belong to his congregation. But his congregation is under the jurisdiction of the SSPX, not the local bishop. The local bishop does not run that chapel.
====================================
The SSPX is being offered a prelature. A prelature gives it the autonomy that the SSPX wants, but it also restricts because its activities must follow a constitution given to it from the Vatican. It cannot write its own constitution, because it's a prelature, not community. There can be a constitution for the priests and religious, but those constitutions cannot contradict the constitution of the prelature.
A prelature has a defined apostolic mission that must be approved by the pope himself, not by a general chapter alone and not by one of the sacred congregations. We don't know how broadly or how narrowly Pope [Francis] will define the apostolic mission of the prelature.
Then we must look at size. The SSPX has about 500 secular priests, which is a very nice number. The average diocese has less than 300. Maybe the megadioceses have more. That looks good. However, those 500 priests are limited to working inside the prelature, not with diocesan structures. Therefore, they will not be allowed to participate in deanery meetings, diocesan synods, clergy councils or conferences of bishops where pastoral decisions are made. They will not be allowed to contradict those decisions made by the host diocese or the conferences of bishops. In other words, the SSPX can have its own pastoral practices within its jurisdiction, but it cannot tell the people of Diocese X that such and such a pastoral decision is a bad thing. They belong to the prelature.
Let's remember that 500 secular priests are a large number for a diocese, not for an international organization. The Salesians and the Franciscans each have more than one million members. How many Salesians or Franciscans are in the average diocese? My point is that we're thinking that the influence of these 500 men is going to turn the Church around. That's not realistic.
The Church will turn around and problems will be solved. New ones will replace the old ones. The SSPX will bring a much needed charism into the Church, but it will stand side by side with the many other charisms that exist in the Church, as it should be. The SSPX is not being regularized to compete with other secular priests or with religious communities. They are being regularized for their own good and for the unity of the Church.
We truly need to keep this in focus. Let's forget about ourselves and let's think about these men and the unity of the Church. My biggest problem with this whole process is the selfish attitude of some people. They're all excited because what they want and what they like is finally being regularized.
It is nice to get what we want and what we like. Make no mistake about that. But at the end of the day, the Church does provide for our spiritual and sacramental life, without the SSPX. What is of greater value here is that we have almost 1,000 men and women (clergy and religious) who are living outside the fence, but on the same side of the street. They are our brothers and sisters and we should love them enough to want them on our side of the fence where they will be safe and where we can share what each of us has to offer.
Finally, it is a great insult to the more than five million male religious and diocesan clergy to say to us that the SSPX are going to fix the Church, as if we had made no contribution for the good of the Church.
There has to be a balance in our thinking and a greater concern for the good of our brothers and sisters in the SSPX rather than our personal wants and wishes. As St. Francis said to our brothers, "The man who has not detached from his wants and wishes is like the man who cannot pass through the eye of the needle. He is still rich."
============================
The FSSP is a Society of Apostolic Life with Pontifical Right. It has the same legal rights and duties as I do, except that I belong to an order and we get more graces. But you can't regulate graces. You can regulate rights.
The charism of a society of pontifical right is not determined by the Holy See, nor does the Holy See impose limits on societies of pontifical right, quite the opposite. Pontifical right gives the FSSP what Trent defined as the Right of Exemption. Normally, this is only for religious men. But Pope John Paul II granted it to the FSSP. This gives it the freedom to write its own constitution, define its mission and charism, modify its mission and charism at any time and to be free from Church control. The only person who can dictate to a institute of pontifical right, is the pope. The only time in recent history that the pope has done this is with the Legionaires of Christ. That last time before that, was Pope Leo XIII when he founded the Franciscans (OFM). That was in 1878.
The FSSP is pretty free.. However its charism may have changed, it is completely under the control of the general chapter, not the Church. Only a pope can overrule a general chapter.
=======================
Once it [sspx] is regularized, it will have a canonical status and that means that it will also have rights. One of those rights is the right of its superior not to allow anyone to leave.
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=683408&page=2
So what is the difference of the 1988 accord with the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) who left the SSPX and went in "communion" with modernist Rome who were allowed to form a "Society of Apostolic Life with Pontifical Right", and the present SSPX administration who held out for a number of years longer and eventually is given the same welcome and "reconciliation" with a gift of a "Personal Prelature"?
Nothing!
The oyster shell changes while the inside is empty of the faith. The Walrus consumed their substance.
Regardless of such goodies and attraction, have these priests and bishops not learned the lessons that modernism carries - a big apostate stick?
The new-sspx is toast.
Is that the end of it for the neo-sspx?
No, remember too that when the new-sspx, rather the conciliar-sspx, is officially assumed into the beast, they are obliged to financially, spiritually, and morally support the conciliar establishment by soliciting from their supporters and benefactors the yearly (and bi-yearly) "Peter's Pence" to fund rome's conciliar campaigns; including upcoming Assisi meetings, as well as all other ecumenical spendings, altar girls, clown masses, communion in the hand, rainbow vestments, the list goes on...as does infidelity goes on.
Your tithe effectively goes to promiscuity - the religion of Baal!
But let's have the 2001 Bishop Fellay remind us how bad it is to have a "Personal Prelature" instead of an "Apostolic Administration". Here is another duplicit eye opener:
Quote:"2) In the August 2001 issue of Communicantes (former Canadian SSPX Magazine), there was published an interview conducted by Fr. de Tanouarn with His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay in which His Excellency spoke of a canonical structure proposed by Rome:
“You have no doubt heard talk of this idea of an apostolic administration. The Society of St. Pius X would have become incorporated into an apostolic administration. What does this signify? The apostolic administration ordinarily is a diocesan structure, or quasi diocesan, in a time of crisis, over a given territory. Well! For us this territory would be the entire world. In other words, they offered us a structure that covered the entire world, a kind of personal diocese…”
Q. Fr. de Tanouarn intervened:
“Excuse me for interrupting, Your Excellency, you mean a personal prelature…”
Bishop Fellay responded (this author’s emphasis in bold):
“Not at all. The apostolic administration is better than a personal prelature. In the first place, a personal prelacy is not necessarily governed by a bishop. An apostolic administration, which is quasi diocesan, normally would be. Furthermore, and above all, the action of an apostolic administration is not limited to its members. The Opus Dei, which is the personal prelacy that exists today, is not subject to the local bishop in all that concerns its members, but it could not consider any external action without the consent of the bishop. With the apostolic administration, we avoid this restriction. We would be able to take an autonomous apostolic action without having to ask authorization from the diocesan bishop, since we would have a veritable diocese, whose distinctive characteristic is that it extends to the entire world. It is very important that such a proposition has been made, because after all, this juridical solution has never happened before, it is ‘sui generis’. Now that it has been established, it can represent for us, from a juridical point of view, a reference, a position of comparison. Especially since it is to the Society of St. Pius X that this possibility has been proposed, which shows just how seriously Rome sees our resistance. It’s not by vainglory that I say that, believe me: symbolically (first of all, it’s not a question of numbers) we represent something very important for Rome, and this also is new.”
"3) In an interview conducted by Brian Mershon of The Remnant and published on February 18, 2009, His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay was posed the following question (my emphasis in bold):
Q. “Do you foresee any oversight by territorial diocesan bishops once the Society is regularized?”
His Excellency answered (this author’s emphasis in bold):
“That would be our death. The situation of the Church is such that once the doctrinal issues have been clarified, we will need our own autonomy in order to survive. This means that we will have to be directly under the authority of the Pope with an exemption. If we look at the history of the Church, we see that every time the Popes wanted to restore the Church, they leaned upon new strength like the Benedictine Cistercians whom the pope allowed to act as best as possible during the crisis, in a status of exemption, in order to overcome the crisis.”
Source: The Society of St. Pius X and the Diocesan Bishops www.therecusant.com/sspx-diocesan-bishops
So who is kidding who? Rather, who is lying to who?
Of course none of this is a surprise, Bishop Fellay has been cooing up to the Diocesan bishops for quite a while.
See here, N.O. Diocesan Bishops become a new focus for the neo-sspx
God is not mocked!
|
|
|
|
| Old-SSPX Condemns Indult Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:07 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
From Archived Catacombs:
In another twist of shameful modernism influencing souls, the SSPX former self condemns yet again its present new self accepting the legal reform of the "Indult - Extraordinary mass" as a secondary means to salvation subservient to the "Ordinary form of mass" - the NOM, also called, the mass of "Pope Paul VI".
Bishop Fellay had, with a Te Deum, accepted the reformed law of the conciliar church to place the entire SSPX congregation under the law of the 2007 Moto Proprio - "Extraordinary form of mass" - highlighting the NOM is the supreme rule of worship and the Ordinary form for use of all Catholics in the church. Thus, for the new-sspx, the legal footing to accept the "Extraordinary" mass is the SAME legal footing to accept the Indult mass. Hitherto, the conciliar-sspx accepts it can be taken away from them under disciplinary laws, if not by, absolute rule removing the faculties of the priests not to say the latin mass...
To accept the Extraordinary mass (as the neo-SSPX did), there is a cum conditione (with condition) stated by pope Benedict in his letter, you accept the new mass as valid and legitimate (being the ordinary/first place of worship) and you also accept Vatican II. They both go together. One created the other, and one affirms the other.
Contained in an except from the old-sspx article "The Indult Mass: should one attend it at all?", there lies the principles one should NOT attend also the "Extraordinary" mass of the conciliar church.
Quote:Excerpt [Angelus 1994]:
The case of attending the traditional Mass said under the "Indult"
Despite all the efforts of the official hierarchy since 1969, a few bishops, many priests, and a great number of the faithful have remained attached to the two-thousand-year old traditional rite of Mass. Time passed but the problem remained. In order to resolve it, Pope John Paul II gave to the diocesan bishops the faculty of making use of an indult so as to allow priests to say and faithful to attend the Mass contained in the Roman Missal edited in 1962; the missal moreover used by the Society of St. Pius X. That was the indult promulgated by the Congregation for the Divine Worship on October 3, 1984,15 an indult we shall see hereafter, made unacceptable through the intention of its legislators and by the conditions of its application. The consecrations of June 30, 1988, occurring, Pope John Paul II made use of this with regards to the traditionalists.
Now, what about attending a Tridentine Mass celebrated under the indult?
First of all, it constitutes a danger for the faith of the faithful, a danger which comes from the priests themselves who are celebrating it. Because to obtain this indult from the official hierarchy, these priests must fulfill the following conditions:
- That it should be very clear that these priests have nothing to do with those who place in doubt... the doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI, in 1970 and that their position should be without any ambiguity and publicly known.[15] [Ed. This, the new-sspx had surrendered to as well by accepting the Moto Proprio of 2007 - Extraordinary mass - and promotes their masses as such throughout their publications.]
Thus is it necessary that these priests prove publicly by their behavior, their words and writings, shorn of ambiguities, that they admit "the doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass. No question in any way whatsoever of criticizing the Protestant and definitely non-Catholic look of Pope Paul VI's New Mass.
Cardinal Mayer, former president of Ecclesia Dei placed in charge of re-integrating the Traditionalists in the Conciliar Church, added the following condition: these same priests "can obtain" this indult "on the condition that they be in normal juridical standing with their bishops or religious superiors." 16 One remembers that dozens of priests have been unjustly put out of their churches or their religious houses for the simple fact of continuing to say without change the Tridentine Mass, except for a good number of those who were favored by certain circumstances (age, distance etc.). May we ask these indult favored priests at what cost or compromise with the integral Catholic Faith have they kept or obtained "normal legal relations" with the hierarchy? Compromise which, for example, could appear in the fact of giving hosts doubtfully consecrated during a previous conciliar Mass or even through the manner of celebrating the traditional Mass full of hesitations and mistakes, sometimes even cause of scandal. [This too has the same legal precedent. No priest can say the "Extraordinary mass" freely without permission in function and good standing with their diocesan bishop. So in fact, the extraordinary mass IS an Indult in every legal way to function. - See the pope's attached explanatory letter to all the bishops in the world the interpretation of that 2007 Moto Proprio. It leave the right of the bishops to exercise who what when how that "extraordinary form" will be said and where publicly.]
There is a danger too for the Faith, that comes from the proximity of the faithful who attend exclusively these indult Masses, because they also have to fulfill the conditions of not placing in doubt the "doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass.15 Characteristically, these type of faithful, unfortunately too often, are concerned with reconciling in thought and in action the truth with heresy, Tradition with the conciliar spirit. [ibid]
Secondly from the very nature of the indult: an indult is "a concession from the authority which dispenses its subjects from the obligation of keeping a law." 17 "The indult is an exception. It can always be withdrawn. It confirms the general rule" 18 which is the New Mass, the conciliar liturgy. Because, to use a special permission, is this not to recognize and legitimize ipso facto the general law, that is to say the legal suppression of the two thousand year-old traditional rite? [ibid]
Indeed, to obtain the indult of 1984, one must fulfill the following conditions:
- that it should be quite clear that those priests and those faithful have nothing to do with those who place in question the legitimacy of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.[15] [ibid]
Furthermore "this concession... should be utilized without prejudice to the observance of the liturgical reform (of Pope Paul VI) in the life of ecclesiastical communities"[15] of the Conciliar Church. [ibid]
Therefore no question of them advertising for the universal usage of the Traditional Mass. They must be made to recognize that this Tridentine Mass was validly, legally and legitimately abrogated or forbidden. No question either or calling the worth, always actual, of the words of the Pope St. Pius V:
By virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity, that for the singing or the reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal (that is to say, the Tridentine Mass), may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.[19] [cf. this article for more on this topic: The legitimacy of Quo Primum today]
The third point to tackle is this: to attend the "indult" Mass is at least to approve implicitly and to encourage the work of the destruction of Catholic Tradition undertaken by the official hierarchy. To prove this assertion, let us look first of all at the intentions of some of those responsible, to see some precise facts. [ibid]
In the first place the intention of Pope John Paul II himself, using this indult to favor the winning over of "traditional Catholics" to conciliar Rome:
The Holy See has granted... the faculty of using the liturgical books in use in 1962... It is very evident that, far from seeking to put a brake on the application of the reform (of the New Mass) undertaken after the Council (by Pope Paul VI), this concession is destined to facilitate the ecclesial communion (that is to say their reinstatement in the Conciliar Church) of people who feel themselves attached to these liturgical forms.[20]
What now of the intentions and hopes of Cardinal Mayer, former president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission? He said:
There are grounds to hope that, with the concerted efforts on the part of all concerned a substantial number of priests and seminarians will find the strength to renounce a 'state of mind' which until now was full of prejudices, of accusations and of disinformation... We have good reason to believe that the charity with which the priests coming from Archbishop Lefebvre and returning into the Church will be received, will contribute greatly to the fulfillment of this hope that, following them, numerous faithful whom they had served up till then, would also return into the ecclesial communion (with the Conciliar Church) through their mediation. Sometimes a temporary solution may be necessary, such as allowing them the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass[21] (of Pope St. Pius V). [ibid, always has been and continues today. See here The aims of the Ecclesia Dei: to Destroy Catholic Tradition ]
In the hands of the official hierarchy, the Tridentine Mass serves therefore as a temporary means and bait to attract the traditional priests and people and to destroy at the same time the work of Catholic restoration, started by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer and their priests. Means and bait to attract the traditional Catholics now considered as schismatics because they are no longer considered as "being in communion" with the present-day Rome, of liberal and modernist tendency. It is to be further noted that the Commission Ecclesia Dei could be generous for a time in the concessions granted to priests - a question of making them bite at the bait. But if through their "mediation" more or less conscious, their faithful do not return into the conciliar fold, it is to be anticipated that they will be judged as useless instruments and will find themselves either in the obligation to fulfill other conditions to keep that permission, or even to simply see the aforesaid permission withdrawn. [ibid]
Let us now move on to some illustrating facts: having received the permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite, the Fraternity of St. Peter now see themselves threatened to accept giving communion in the hand[22] and saying the Mass of 1965, 22 having already accepted by one of their superiors, "all the documents of the Vatican II Council."[23] Hundreds of priests, seminarians and faithful have been lured with the Tridentine Rite and now are made to forcibly return to the ranks and the spirit of the Council. [ibid] This work of destruction continues by the approval of Indult Masses close to our important Mass centers... A good method to empty these last ones or at least to prevent them from developing.
That is why, what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate from us the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.[18] [ibid]
To attempt to restore the traditional Mass without considering the historical context of the crisis of the Faith is to become a blind instrument in the hands of the conciliar hierarchy. [ibid]
What final conclusion can we draw from all this?
That the precept of attending Sunday Mass is obligatory for all Catholics who have reached the age of reason (seven years old) but that some may be excused particularly those who are only near Masses "of Pope Paul VI" or to traditional Masses said under the "Indult." Why? Firstly, because of the danger for the faith coming either from the priests who celebrate or from the faithful who attend them; secondly, legitimization is given to the new liturgy and finally an approval more or less implicit of the work of destruction of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Tradition. [Therefore, by the principles laid out here, Catholics are oblige to refuse the "extraordinary form" of mass regardless it may be a latin rite mass, it is surrounded and imbued in acceptance of the norms and Canon laws of Vatican II.]
Source
|
|
|
|
| SSPX priest in 2010 shows how one cannot attend SSPX Masses since 2012 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:02 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
Below is a translated excerpt from Fr. Chautard’s article, “ Le combat pour la messe “ (The Combat for the Mass) which can be found in the November 2010 issue of Le Chardonnet (the monthly bulletin of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet parish in Paris). Fr. Chautard is presently the rector of the SSPX University in Paris (L’Institut Universitaire Saint-Pie X).
Fr. Chautard’s explanation clearly shows why one should not attend SSPX Masses.
+ + +
Translated by: Unbrandable @ Cor-Mariae
Fr. Chautard:
“…But some do not hesitate to go to traditional Masses celebrated by priests (belonging to institutes) officially recognizing the full catholicity and legitimacy of the Council, of religious freedom, of the new Code of Canon Law, etc.
These faithful, and sometimes these priests, do not themselves adhere to the official directives of the said institutes. This scenario, unprecedented before 1984, more widespread in 1988, was further multiplied by the publication of the Motu Proprio Summarum Pontificum in 2007.
It was then realized – or at least remembered – that fidelity to the Mass of all Time did not automatically entail fidelity to the doctrine of all Time and that allegiance to the traditional Mass did not prevent allegiance to the Council and what comes from it. The combat for the Mass, formerly inseparable from the combat for the Faith, was no more, de facto.
A Change of Emphasis
From this day, the combat of the Society for the Mass was further refined to put the spiritual, moral and normally inseparable link between the combat for the Faith and the combat for the Mass, between the assistance at the Mass of all Time and the confession of the Faith of all Time. Without a doubt, we can argue about the congenital inconsistency between an anti-ecumenical, traditional Mass and modern errors like ecumenism. It is not only about that.
For breaking the link between assistance at Mass and communion in the same faith with the minister of this Mass and his hierarchy rests upon a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the Eucharistic cult.
In fact, assisting – in an active manner and not purely passive by civility– at the Mass of a priest (like at any other sacrament) amounts to professing the same faith of this priest and the authority he is under.
Christian antiquity had a clear awareness of this reality. Individualism had not yet penetrated the sanctuary and Christian piety. Every baptized person knew that assisting at Mass meant publicly manifesting his communion in the faith with the celebrant. Whatever the individual reasons, they knew that participation at Mass is always a public confession of adhesion to the faith of the celebrant who presides over the Sacrifice and therefore to the sacramental and liturgical confession of the Faith. That is why they refused to assist at the Mass of a heretical priest. It would have publicly signified their communion in the same faith.
Consequently, to say that assistance at a Mass does not entail of itself any adhesion to the doctrinal orientation of the minister or of his institute constitutes in itself a liturgical error and proof of an individualism foreign to Catholic faith and piety.
That is why the combat led by the Society for the Mass [translator’s note: and now led by the true Catholic Resistance], far from being finished, has taken henceforth a direction that is more doctrinal still, manifesting more the narrow link between the virtue of faith and the virtue of religion, between doctrine and liturgy, between the Lex Credendi and the Lex orandi.
Such is the course to follow in order to keep an authentic fidelity, complete, to the teaching of Jesus Christ and so as not to separate in our Christian life what must stay united: faith in Jesus Christ and the irremediable attachment to the inestimable treasure that He left us: His Sacrifice.”
laportelatine.org/district/prieure/stnicol/Chardonnet/Chardonnet262.pdf
|
|
|
|
| SSPX's 2012 Doctrinal Declaration |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:27 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- Replies (6)
|
|
It has been nearly six years since Bishop Fellay signed and offered to Rome his Doctrinal Declaration. Since that time we have seen many changes in the SSPX: its [/url]re-branding, the SSPX in Argentina is formally recognized by the conciliar church, the SSPX asking the local diocesan priests to hear the marriage vows of SSPX parishioners, Fr. Paul Robinson preaching evolution with the full support of the SSPX, etc. to just name a few.
These do not include those events that are antecedent to the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration but which also speak to a shift away from the guiding principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, events such as the GREC meetings, the asking by Bishop Fellay of Pope Benedict XVI for the lifting of the excommunications in 2009 and the praise for the Motu Proprio of 2007.
But these antecedent events culminate in the Doctrinal Declaration. And by consequence, the fruits of the that Declaration are seen in the many errors and changes since that its signing in 2012. It is for these reasons that we are once again looking at that document. They say that hindsight is twenty-twenty. How much clearer things appear when in their proper context. The purpose of this thread is to serve as a reminder of WHY that Doctrinal Declaration has spewed so much error. And how the events that are unfolding and continue to unfold in the betrayal of the SSPX, the Chronology of its Suicide, are typified in this document:
Quote:Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble
Presented to Rome
15th April, 2012
Translated from the text on La Sapiniere.
I
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.
II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)
III
1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.
2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."(3)
3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).
4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).
5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.
6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).
7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.
Notes--
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.
(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.
(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Dz. 3070.
(4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: “All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”
(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.
(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].”
(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.
(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.
(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.
[url=http://redirect.viglink.com?key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&subId=6872759&u=http%3A//www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012]www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012
|
|
|
|
| Doctrinal Evolution: Letter to Priest who left SSPX to join Conciliar Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 02:31 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
Why such a Doctrinal Evolution of the Ecclesia Dei Communities?
[or, Why do traditional priests and bishops leave Tradition to join the Conciliar Church?]
Dominicans of Avrille| March 18, 2015
This text was written several years ago by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. It was addressed to those of his confreres who had left the SSPX in order to receive an official canonical status from the Conciliar Church [within the [i]Ecclesia Dei communities]. He was trying to find a reason that would explain their doctrinal evolution.[/i]
There is an important difference between the clear, consistent declarations made by Archbishop Lefebvre right from his early days on Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and Vatican II, and the position presently held by yourself.
To explain this situation, there are only three possible hypotheses:
1) either you never knew the real position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, and you followed him not properly knowing why;
2) you understood his position but did not approve of it, and so you hypocritically gave the appearance of remaining with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX; or
3) your doctrinal position evolved between the period “before”, and the period “after” the Episcopal consecrations.
1. The hypothesis that you may be ignorant seems to be psychologically impossible and even absurd. It is simply impossible for any of you not to have read even one work by Archbishop Lefebvre, not to have heard even one of his sermons, and not to have known his firm official position. Your ignorance in this matter must be categorically rejected.
2. The hypothesis of hypocrisy may well be possible. Nevertheless, it seems highly improbable given the number of persons involved and their moral character. Furthermore, the hypothesis of hypocrisy represents an insult so serious that I would accept it only after hearing an explicit declaration upholding this position by the individuals in question. That is why I reject this hypothesis as the explanation for your evolution.
3. Therefore, if you know Archbishop Lefebvre’s position on Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and Vatican II (we reject ignorance); if you are not a secret opponent and liar (we reject hypocrisy); then that only leaves the third hypothesis as the right one: your change of position can only be explained by a doctrinal evolution of your position.
But where does this doctrinal evolution come from?
Here, two hypotheses are possible: either the cause is of a purely intellectual order, or it is of a moral and psychological order.
A. The hypothesis that the evolution is purely intellectual seems to fall under the heading of miracles rather than factual history. One would have to imagine that there was a sudden change in thinking, an intellectual illumination, on the goodness of Liturgical Reform, on the truth contained in Dignitatis Humanae, or on the timeliness of Vatican II. A serious historian must reject such an unlikely hypothesis.
B. The only valid hypothesis is that of a moral and psychological order, in other words, one that originates from exterior circumstances. Only one conclusion is possible: it is your dealings with Rome and with diocesan bishops that have brought about this doctrinal evolution.
Indeed, all your Roman and diocesan contacts are in favour of the Liturgical Reform, of Dignitatis Humanae and of Vatican II. It is completely normal, obvious, and historically certain that once you negotiate with Rome and the bishops and once you demand certain concessions, you must then be silent, you must soften or altogether abandon your opposition to the Liturgical Reform, to Dignitatis Humanae and to the Council, or else you will find yourself in a position that will be psychologically unbearable. This is the one true cause of your doctrinal evolution: the moral weight of those with whom you dialogue and your own desire to achieve tangible results from these difficult negotiations where you are in a minority position. This situation forces you to make concessions, if only verbal concessions.
I do not claim that you are making these concessions out of cowardice. I simply claim that, once you have evolved beyond a certain point, you then start to think it possible and even necessary to temper your opposition in the hope of obtaining greater results. But, if I were to consider your present attitude objectively, I would be obliged to note that there has been a shift concerning points that have always been considered as vital in the combat for Tradition.
The conclusion is therefore extremely clear: in spite of your good intentions and your initial desire to remain faithful to Tradition, it was impossible for you to continue to firmly resist the Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and the Council, and at the same time to pursue negotiations with those who are firmly in favour of these three key points.
As things stand at present, negotiations and agreements with Rome and with diocesan bishops must necessarily end up, sooner or later, with the abandonment of the positions that were always held in Tradition and notably by Archbishop Lefebvre.
In other words, present-day Rome has but one goal: to lead all who negotiate with Rome towards the errors of the Council and Liturgical Reform. The truth is there for all to see: Rome is not in favour of Tradition. That is why they have not kept their promises. That is why Rome did not sincerely wish the negotiations to succeed.
* * *
The author of the above text has now “evolved” himself, as is shown in a statement in the December 2014 issue of a widely diffused publication:
« We wish with all our hearts for a speedy “reconciliation” that would benefit both groups and also the entire Church. The difficulties are objective and do not primarily depend on individuals, but we may always pray that Our Lord “gather His Church in unity”. That is what we fervently ask for every day. »
Conciliar Rome has not converted. The danger remains the same.
[Emphasis in the original.]
|
|
|
|
| Second Sunday of Advent |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:08 AM - Forum: Advent
- Replies (6)
|
|
SECOND SUNDAY IN ADVENT.
Taken from Fr. Leonard Goffine's Explanations of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays, Holydays throughout the Ecclesiastical Year, 1880
This day the Church not only makes mention in the office of the priest, but also in the Mass, of the two different Advents of Christ, that by His first gracious advent we may be gladdened . and by His last terrible coming at the day of judgment we may be impressed with salutary fear, with this intention she cries out at the Introit: People of Sion, behold the Lord shall come to save the nations; and the Lord shall make the glory of his voice to be heard in the joy of your heart. (Isai. XXX. 3o.) drive ear, O thou that rulest Israel: thou that leadest Joseph like a sheep. (Ps. LXXIX.) Glory etc.
PRAYER OF THE CHURCH. Stir up our hearts, O Lord, to prepare the ways of Thine only-begotten Son: that through this advent we may be worthy to serve Thee with purified minds: who Livest and reignest with God tin* Father, in union with the Holy Ghost. God for ever and ever. Amen.
EPISTLE. (Romans XV. 4 — 13.) Brethren, what things soever were written, were written for our learning, that through patience - and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope. Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind one towards another, according to Jesus Christ: that with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive one another, as Christ also hath received you unto the honor of God. For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God. to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. But that the Gentiles are to glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: Therefore will I confess to thee. O Lord, among the Gentiles, and will sing to thy name. And again he saith: Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. And again: Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles, and magnify him, all ye people. And again, Isaias saith: There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise up to rule the Gentiles, in him the Gentiles shall hope. Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope, and in the power of the Holy Ghost.
What does St. Paul teach in this Epistle?
The Jews and Gentiles who had been converted to the Christian faith were disputing among themselves at Rome, in regard to abstinence and the use of certain kinds of food, reproaching each other severely; the Jews boasted that the Saviour, according to promise, was born of their nation, thus claiming Him from the Gentiles, who, in their turn, reproached the Jews for their ingratitude in having crucified Him. To restore harmony St. Paul shows that each had reason, the Jews and Gentiles alike, to praise God, to whose grace and goodness they owed all; that each had in Him a Redeemer in whom they could hope for salvation; and he warns them not to deprive themselves of that hope by contentions. By these words the Apostle also teaches that we too, have great reason to praise God, and to thank Him for calling us, whose forefathers were heathens, to the Christian faith, and to guard against losing our salvation by pride, envy, impurity &c.
Why should we read the Scriptures?
That we may know what we are to believe, and do in order to be saved, as all Scripture inspired by God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice; (Tim. III. 16.) that we may learn from what Christ has done for us, and the saints for Christ, to be patient in our sufferings, and to be consoled and encouraged by their example. To derive this benefit from the Scriptures, the Catholic must read them by the light of that Spirit through whose assistance they came into existence, who lives and remains for ever with the Church: that is, the light of the Holy Ghost must be sought, that their meaning may be read according to the sense of the Church and not be explained according to the reader's judgment. For he who reads the holy Scriptures by the light of his own private judgment, must, as experience shows, of necessity diverge from the right path, become entangled in manifold doubts, and at last, lose the faith entirely. For this reason the Catholic Church has very properly limited the reading of the Bible, not as has been falsely asserted, unconditionally forbidden it, but she allows the reading of those editions only, which are accompanied by notes and explanations, that the unity of faith may not be disturbed, and that among Catholics there may not be the terrible bewilderment of the human intellect which has taken place among the different heretical sects who have even declared murder, bigamy and impurity to be permissible on the authority the Bible. — We are to consider also, that Christ never commanded the Bible to be written or read, and that not the readers but the hearers and the followers of the word of God by which is meant those who hear the word of God in sermons, and keep it, will be saved.
Why is God called a God of patience, of consolation, and of hope?
He is called a God of patience because He awaits our repentance, of consolation, because He gives us grace be patient in crosses and afflictions, and so consoles us inwardly, that we become not faint-hearted; of hope, because He gives us the virtue of hope, and because He desires to be Himself the reward we are to expect after this life.
ASPIRATION. O God of patience, of consolation and of hope, fill our hearts with peace and joy, and grant that we may become perfect in all good, and by faith, hope and charity, attain the promised salvation.
GOSPEL. (Matt. XI 2 - 10.) At that time, when John had heard in prison the works of Christ, sending two of his disciples, he said to him: Art thou he that art to come, or do we look for another? And Jesus making answer, said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them: and blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me. And when they went their way. Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John, What went you out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind? But what went you out to see? a man clothed in soft garments? Behold, they that are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings. But what went you out to see? a prophet? yea I tell you, and more than a prophet. For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my Angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.
Why was John in prison?
He was in prison, and lost his life, because he had rebuked king Herod for his adulterous marriage with his brother's wife. (Matt. XIV. 3-10.) Truth, as the proverb says, is certainly a very beautiful mother, but she usually bears a very ugly daughter: Hatred. St. John experienced, that speaking the truth very often arouses hatred and enmity against the speaker. — Let us learn from him to speak the truth always, when duty requires it, even if it brings upon us the greatest misfortunes, for, if with St. John we patiently bear persecution, with St. John we shall become martyrs for truth.
Why did St John send his disciples to Christ?
That they should learn from Christ, who had become illustrious by His teachings and miracles, that He was really the promised Messiah, the Saviour of the world, whom they should follow.
Why did Christ say to lite disciples of St. John: “Go and say to John, the blind see, the lame walk, &”?
That they should, by His miracles, judge Him to be the Messiah, because the prophets had predicted that He would work such miracles, (Isai. XXXV. 5—6.) Christ," says St. Cyril, proved that He was the Messiah by the grandeur as well as by the number of His miracles."
Why does Christ add: “And blessed is he who scandalized in me?”
Christ used these words in reference to those who would be scandalized by His poverty, humility and ignominious death on the cross, and who for these reasons would doubt and despise Him, and cast Him away; though "man," as St. Gregory says, -owes all tin- more love to the Lord, his God, the more humiliations He has borne for him."
What was our Lord's object in the questions he asked concerning St. John?
His object was, to remove from St. John all suspicion of failing in faith in Him; and to praise the perseverance with which, although imprisoned and threatened with death, he continued to till his office of preacher, thus constituting him an example to all preachers, confessors and superiors, that they may never be deterred by human respect, or fear of man, or other temporal considerations, from courageously fulfilling their duties. Our Lord commended also rigorous penance, exhibited by St. John's coarse garments and simple food, that we may learn, from his example, penance and mortification.
Why does Christ say that John is "more than a prophet?"
Because St. John was foretold by the prophet Malachias as was no other prophet; because of all the prophets he was the only one who with his own eyes saw Christ and could point Him out, and was the one to baptize Him: and because like an angel, a messenger of God, he announced the coming of the Saviour, and prepared the way for the Lord.
How did St. John prepare the way for the Saviour?
By his sermons on penance, and by his own penitential life he endeavored to move the hearts of the Jews, that by amending their lives, they might prepare to receive the grace of the Messiah, for God will not come with His grace into our hearts if we do not prepare His way by true repentance.
ASPIRATION. O Lord Jesus, by the praise Thou didst accord to Thy forerunner St. John, for his firmness and austerities, inflame our hearts with love to imitate his steadfastness and penance, that we may never do anything to please man which may be displeasing to Thee; grant us also Thy grace that we too, like St. John, may have those who are confided to our care, instructed in the Christian doctrine.
+++
CONSOLATION IN SUFFERING.
“The God of patience and of comfort, the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing”. (Rom. XV. 5, 13.)
What gives us the greatest consolation in adversities?
THE strong and fervent belief that each and every thing that happens to us, comes to us for our own good from God, and that whatever evil befalls us, is by the will or permission of God. Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, are from God. (Ecclus. XI. 14.) If we have received good things at the hand of God, (Job. II. 10.) saith the pious Job in his affliction, “why should we not receive evil?"
We should be of the full persuasion that without the permission of God not a single hair of our head shall perish, (Luke XXI. 18.) much less can any other evil be done to us by man or devil; (Job. I.) we should have a steadfast confidence that if we ask Him. God can and will assist us in our sufferings, if it be for our salvation. Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? And if she should forget, yet will I forget thee. Behold, I have graven thee in my hands; (Isai. XLIX. 15, 16.) we should hope for abundant reward in the future life, which we will merit by patience in our sufferings, For that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; (II Cor. IV. 17.) we should remember that all complaints and murmurs against the dispensation of God useless, and lead only to harm and shame; Who hath resisted Him. and hath had peace? (Job. IX. 4.) we should have a vivid remembrance of our sins, for which we have long since deserved the eternal punishments of hell, — hence the well known saying of St. Augustine: O Lord here cut, here burn, but spare me in eternity. No other way leads to the kingdom of heaven than the way of the cross, which Christ Himself, His sorrowing mother, and all the saints had to tread. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory? (Luke XXIV. 26.) Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. (Acts XIV. 21.) And we should not forget that sorrows and adversities are signs of God's love, and manifest proofs of being His chosen ones. Whom the Lord loveth He chastiseth, and He scourgeth every son whom He receiveth. (Heb. XII. 6. comp. 7-11)
PRAYER IN SORROW. O almighty, kind, and merciful God! who hast said: "Call upon me in the day of trouble. I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me". (Ps. XLIX. 15.) behold relying upon Thy word. I take refuge in Thee in my trouble. Give honor to Thy name, therefore, and deliver me, if it be pleasing to Thee and beneficial for me, that all may know, Thou art our only help. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| European Commission recommends online ‘services’ for Christmas |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:59 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Spiritual]
- No Replies
|
|
European Commission recommends online ‘services,’ ‘banning of communal singing’ for Christmas
It should be said that the European Commission, in its inhuman regulations to take the joy and truth out of Christmas,
is exerting the power of an unelected executive body that is not famous for using its functions in favor of the common good.
December 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The European Commission published a “communication” on December 2, calling all the member states of the European Union to work together on COVID-19 restrictions in view of the upcoming holiday season. Under the title “Staying safe from COVID-19 during winter,” it depicts a dire situation where – according to the document – “every 17 seconds, a person dies in the EU due to COVID-19.” Fear having thus been instilled, the communication suggests a number of measures to be taken all over the EU, including severe limitations on “ceremonies” and a ban on “communal singing.”
The word “Christmas” is drearily absent from the European Commission’s communication, but the mention of “ceremonies” unambiguously points to the feast of the Birth of Our Lord. Despite massive, mainly Islamic immigration, the majority of citizens living in the formerly Christian nations of Europe share at least a basic Catholic or Christian culture. “Ceremonies” during the “holiday season” – a euphemism used to avoid religious terms in the European Union that has formally rejected the mention of Europe’s Christian roots in its Charter – can hardly mean anything else than Holy Mass, and specially Midnight Mass, or the Protestant services that take place to celebrate Christmas.
This is how the unsigned document speaks about these religious gatherings: “In case of ceremonies, consider avoiding large services or using online, TV or radio broadcasts, allocating specific spots for close families (‘household bubbles’) to sit together, and banning of communal singing. The use of masks is particularly relevant during these types of gatherings.”
Yes, you read that correctly. For the whole of the European Union, even in places where a dramatic fall of “cases” – that is, positive tests, mostly on people who have few or no symptoms of the associated COVID-19 – of the Wuhan coronavirus is currently taking place, and hospitalizations and deaths are subsequently also diminishing, the European executive is suggesting that Catholic and other churches should ideally shut out the faithful from their celebrations and force them to join virtual “worship.” Which is, in fact, no worship at all; at most, an aid for private devotion when personal assistance at a service is impossible.
For Catholics, such interference from the secular authorities who presume to dictate how and when they should practice their faith is even more obnoxious. Holy Mass actualizes the Sacrifice of Jesus-Christ on the Cross, for the redemption of many, and allows them to assist at the Eucharistic miracle, by which Our Lord is truly present. Receiving Communion can only be done in person. In the Catholic faith, which is that of the Incarnation, the body cannot and should not be set in “remote” mode, and separated from reality by screens and internet, apart from serious reasons such as verified and actual contagiousness, as every responsible person is capable of working out independently. Body and soul belong together; they are one.
In a way, COVID restrictions are de-unifying the human person, once again tearing asunder what God made one.
And did not Christ say: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them”? This also marks the importance of personal, physical presence in Christian worship.
You also read correctly that a handful of technocrats in Brussels – the seat of the European Commission – has in substance told the whole of the European Union that “communal singing” is not good, and even dangerous and capable of sending people to their graves. The ban it suggests is not for people who are coughing and sneezing, but for all: it is heaping suspicion on one of the most joyful and natural expressions of public worship, that has been with us since the beginnings of Christianity and beyond, and in fact throughout the religious history of mankind.
Singing together bonds communities (and also armies, and revolutionaries, and sailors, and children, and mothers with their newborns, and monks, and nuns…): “To sing is to pray twice,” says the quote attributed to Saint Augustine, probably derived from these words from his Commentary on Psalm 73: “For he that singeth praise, not only praiseth, but only praiseth with gladness: he that singeth praise, not only singeth, but also loveth him of whom he singeth. In praise, there is the speaking forth of one confessing; in singing, the affection of one loving.”
And the European Commission is telling us not to sing? Putting a damper on what is left of European piety and faith and love of the traditional Christmas carols that are so varied and so touching?
It should be said that the European Commission, in its inhuman regulations to take the joy and truth out of Christmas, is exerting the power of an unelected executive body that is not famous for using its functions in favor of the common good. Fortunately, in this case, the binding force of a mere “communication” addressed to the European Parliament and the Council is inexistent. On the flip side, so many absurd and even dangerous rules have been imposed on the public in the EU in the name of fighting COVID-19, often copied from one country to the other, that its impact may well prove to be very real.
Further examination of the European Commission’s recommendations in view of “Staying safe from COVID-19 during winter” reveals their perfect alignment on a narrative that has been smoothly imposed in many European countries and beyond in the name of fear, to the detriment of the economy with millions at risk of losing their livelihood, and of health and psychological well-being as fear and lack of timely treatment for other illnesses are affecting an increasing proportion of the population.
“The latest epidemiological numbers indicate that the COVID-19 restrictions reintroduced since October are starting to reduce the transmission of the virus,” says the document. In France, at least, this is not true: contaminations and new cases of effective illness were already on a downward trend according to used water analyses when the second lockdown was implemented on October 28, and deaths followed suit, spiking ten days later.
Interestingly, the document notes “the buy-in of citizens and communities is critical to the success of any action.” COVID-19 measures are also the fruit of communications campaigns but need to take “pandemic fatigue” into account, says the Brussels Commission: “People are tired of taking the necessary precautionary actions, including physical distancing, reduced social interactions and economic restrictions. This makes essential restrictions more difficult to implement, and provides fertile ground for disinformation about the pandemic.”
It adds: “Pandemic fatigue is an expected and natural response to a prolonged public health crisis on the scale of COVID-19. It is therefore important for Member States to address and recognise this problem. The WHO Regional Office for Europe has developed guidance to support countries in developing multifactorial action plans to maintain and reinvigorate public support for protective behaviours.”
This World Health Organization document is a 28-page publication with advice for governments and health authorities how to go about obtaining acceptance and cooperation (although compliance would be a better word) with restrictions in the fight against a long drawn-out “pandemic.” Not unsurprisingly, the word “liberty” is absent from the documents and “freedom” appears only in the phrase: “An ingrown urge for self-determination and freedom may grow as restrictions continue for a long time, impose inconveniences in everyday life, or continuously change in ways people feel they have little control over.” This, together with “demotivation” that appears “when dire circumstances drag on,” and “humans have to adopt a different style of coping,” is what leads to “pandemic fatigue” according to the WHO. But the WHO is there to help governments overcome this fatigue. It’s an interesting read for those who seek to “decrypt” present government actions and communication.
Returning to the European Commission’s document, it is also helpful to realize that it has, in its own words, “used anonymized and aggregated mobile network operators’ data to derive mobility insights and build tools to inform better targeted measures, in a Mobility Visualisation Platform, available to the Member States. Mobility insights are also useful in monitoring the effectiveness of measures once imposed.”
This means that moving around with a smartphone amounts to offering political powers, even at EU level, a tool to track movements and gatherings that are going against confinement or curfew rules. After anonymous surveillance, can individual surveillance be far behind? China already has the know-how, with facial recognition combined with artificial intelligence. In France, a new security law is proposing to allow drone surveillance: another way to severely curb public liberties and personal freedoms.
For Christmas, the European Union would like to see the definition of “clear criteria for small social gatherings, small events, e.g. maximum number of people allowed to ensure compliance with physical distancing rules and use of masks,” and the implementation of “a maximum number of people per household gathering:” in France, the “strong recommendation” is that Christmas dinners should be limited to six adults (children are not counted). One doctor went on record on television saying it would be best to cut the Christmas cake in two and make Grandpa and Grandma eat in the kitchen.
The Brussels Commission also thinks that “if considered, any temporary loosening of rules on social gatherings and events should be accompanied by strict requirements for people to self-quarantine before and after for a number of days (preferably at least seven).”
Speaking of France, the government has not gone to this length but it will introduce a 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. curfew as of December 15 (excepting Christmas and New Year’s Eve) which the Commission devoutly favors.
As a conclusion, the document stresses that “All reporting Member States are actively looking into communication around COVID-19 vaccination, and many are preparing dedicated communication plans. The Commission will work closely with Member States to support their communication efforts towards citizens on COVID-19 vaccines so that citizens can make informed decisions.”
Informed by the Member States’ communication efforts, that is!
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Calls for 'immediate suspension' of Pfizer vaccine over fears of sterilization |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:37 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- No Replies
|
|
Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon request a stop of all corona vaccination studies and call for co-signing the petition
2020 News | December 1, 2020
On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).
Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon demand that the studies – for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers – should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned scientists against the vaccine and the study design.
On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se.
Furthermore, they demand that it must be excluded, e.g. by means of animal experiments, that risks already known from previous studies, which partly originate from the nature of the corona viruses, can be realized. The concerns are directed in particular to the following points:- The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
- The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
- The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
- The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.
CALL FOR HELP: Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon ask as many EU citizens as possible to co-sign their petition by sending the e-mail prepared here to the EMA.
Nachtrag: Wegen teilweiser Überlastung der Server hier der Inhalt der E-Mail und die Kontaktadressen zum späteren Selbst-Versenden:
An: press@ema.europa.eu; petitionEMA@corona-ausschuss.com
Betreff: Co-signing the petition of Dr. Wodarg, Germany, and Dr. Yeadon, UK (submitted on 1-Dec-2020)
Dear Sir or Madam, I am hereby co-signing the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon to support their urgent request to stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b (EudraCT Number 2020-002641-42) and other clinical trials. The full text of the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon can be found here: https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2...hibits.pdf I hereby respectfully request that EMA act on the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon immediately. Regards
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1976 Excerpt - No Insults in Defense of the Truth |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:28 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre:
Quote:"We should pray also for the faithful who maintain Tradition that they may always preserve a strong, firm attitude, but not an attitude of contempt for persons, insult to persons, insult to bishops. We have the advantage of possessing the truth - we are not at fault - just as the Church has the superiority over error of having the truth: that superiority is hers. Because we have the conviction that we are upholding the truth, that the truth must make headway, that truth must convince, it is not our person. It is not outbursts of anger, or insults to people, which will give added weight to truth. On the contrary, that could cast doubt upon our possession of the truth. Becoming angry and insulting shows that we do not completely trust in the weight of truth, which is the weight of God Himself. It is in God that we trust, in Truth which is God, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ. What can be surer than that? Nothing. And little by little that truth makes, and will make, its way. It must. So let us resolve that in our expressions and attitudes we shall not despise and insult people, but be firm against error- absolute firm, without compromise, without relaxation, because we are with Our Lord. It is a question of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the glory of the Blessed Trinity is at stake, not the infinite glory in heaven, but the glory here below on earth. It is truth; and we defend it at any cost, whatever happens ." (Archbishop Lefebvre, "A Talk to the Seminarians at Econe," September, 18, 1976, A Bishop Speaks)
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: painting-of-eternal-father-by-challe.jpg?w=200]](https://divinerhythm.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/painting-of-eternal-father-by-challe.jpg?w=200)
![[Image: circumcision_of_jesus_001.jpg?itok=ky9lkfr6]](https://fsspx.uk/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/news/circumcision_of_jesus_001.jpg?itok=ky9lkfr6)
![[Image: O8gnGNinqGqrjpv375Iot2v9HzHeEpUjJvzP6xcd...y0AZ4FwRNQ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/O8gnGNinqGqrjpv375Iot2v9HzHeEpUjJvzP6xcdP5w5FiAi0sbg74lf0rgnLEtcaHQmciiFtXVLOdZJ2xO6JJRtb9yklVu_geysvIF9s06r4NNmTUJIttViGXD5DBI8zS2by0AZ4FwRNQ)
![[Image: St-Ambrose-detail-window-Antwerp-Belgium-Roman.jpg]](https://cdn.britannica.com/33/188433-050-55BC5A37/St-Ambrose-detail-window-Antwerp-Belgium-Roman.jpg)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-5B...n.jpeg&f=1]](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-5BVR_r8IIi8%2FWEQ9m5tPZaI%2FAAAAAAAAAPU%2FKCvsShx9yRYVQNQEsIZV61B3wvEPuNwhwCLcB%2Fs1600%2FSt.%252BJohn%252Bthe%252BBaptist%252Bin%252Bprison.jpeg&f=1)
![[Image: Christmas_Bavaria__810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Christmas_Bavaria__810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
