02-03-2021, 10:37 AM
From the above OP article:
How shameful it is to read the SSPX carefully choosing to refer only to the doctrinal and moral "deficiencies" of the Conciliar Church in their reply to the scathing report by the French Conciliar bishops! To point out the "meagerness of the spiritual life." This is their defense of Tradition?
Contrast this with how Archbishop Lefebvre summed up the doctrinal situation post-Vatican II, using much stronger terms, showing the full weight:
“All those Conciliar Fathers who gave their vote to Dignitatis Humanae and proclaimed Religious Liberty with Paul VI, did they realize that they had in fact uncrowned Our Lord Jesus Christ by tearing away the crown of His Social Royalty? Did they grasp that they had very concretely dethroned Our Lord Jesus Christ from the throne of His Divinity? Did they understand that, making themselves the echo of the apostate nations, they were making those abominable blasphemies rise up towards His throne: We do not want Him to rule over us; We have no king but Caesar?” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2003, pp. 211-212)
“And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?” ... It is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, June 30th 1988, Episcopal Consecration Sermon)
“We must not be under any illusions. We are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of Popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear—hesitation such as, “Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the Pope?” Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition .... But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church’s life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point. They say it themselves! It is clear! I think that we must drive this point home with our people.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sept. 9, 1988, Ecône; Conference to Seminarians; Fideliter N° 66, Nov.-Dec., 1988)
See also, Fr. Hewko's commentary on Pope Pius VI's bull Auctorem Fidei:
Pope Pius VI: "In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error."
Fr. Hewko: This is powerful. This condemns Vatican II. This condemns the doctrinal declaration of April 15th, 2012 signed by a Bishop (Fellay). It condemns double meaning language and fuzzy weasel-words. It condemns that when you talk about the Catholic faith. This also condemns those five Eleison Comments (of Bishop Williamson's) that say the new Mass gives grace. It is the same slippery language that is used to insinuate error.
Quote:In a short comment, fsspx.news noted that the missionary spirit of Novus Ordo parishes remains to be proved: "The regular decline of practicing Catholics is a sure witness… It is clear that if the churches are emptying, it is because of doctrinal and moral deficiencies and of the meagerness of the spiritual life being offered by the ‘conciliar’ Church."
How shameful it is to read the SSPX carefully choosing to refer only to the doctrinal and moral "deficiencies" of the Conciliar Church in their reply to the scathing report by the French Conciliar bishops! To point out the "meagerness of the spiritual life." This is their defense of Tradition?
Contrast this with how Archbishop Lefebvre summed up the doctrinal situation post-Vatican II, using much stronger terms, showing the full weight:
“All those Conciliar Fathers who gave their vote to Dignitatis Humanae and proclaimed Religious Liberty with Paul VI, did they realize that they had in fact uncrowned Our Lord Jesus Christ by tearing away the crown of His Social Royalty? Did they grasp that they had very concretely dethroned Our Lord Jesus Christ from the throne of His Divinity? Did they understand that, making themselves the echo of the apostate nations, they were making those abominable blasphemies rise up towards His throne: We do not want Him to rule over us; We have no king but Caesar?” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2003, pp. 211-212)
“And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?” ... It is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, June 30th 1988, Episcopal Consecration Sermon)
“We must not be under any illusions. We are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of Popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear—hesitation such as, “Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the Pope?” Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition .... But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church’s life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point. They say it themselves! It is clear! I think that we must drive this point home with our people.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sept. 9, 1988, Ecône; Conference to Seminarians; Fideliter N° 66, Nov.-Dec., 1988)
See also, Fr. Hewko's commentary on Pope Pius VI's bull Auctorem Fidei:
Pope Pius VI: "In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error."
Fr. Hewko: This is powerful. This condemns Vatican II. This condemns the doctrinal declaration of April 15th, 2012 signed by a Bishop (Fellay). It condemns double meaning language and fuzzy weasel-words. It condemns that when you talk about the Catholic faith. This also condemns those five Eleison Comments (of Bishop Williamson's) that say the new Mass gives grace. It is the same slippery language that is used to insinuate error.
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre