Author: admin

The Rosary – a School of Contemplation

admin Meditations


The Rosary

a School of Contemplation

by Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P.

(extracts)

After Holy Mass, the Rosary is one of the most beautiful and efficacious forms of prayer, on condition of understanding it and living it.

Difficulties

It sometimes happens that its recitation becomes a matter of routine. The mind, not being really gripped by the things of God, finds itself a prey to distractions. Sometimes the prayer is said hurriedly and soullessly. Sometimes it is said for the purpose of obtaining temporal favours [which is not in itself bad, but] desired out of all relation to spiritual gain. […]

It is sure that to pray well, it is sufficient to think in a general way of God and of the graces for which one asks. But to make the most out of our five mysteries, we should remember that they constitute but a third of the whole Rosary, and that they should be accompanied by meditation – which can be very simple – on the Joyful, Sorrowful and Glorious Mysteries, which recall the whole life of Jesus and Mary, and their glory in heaven.

The Rosary is a true school of contemplation

The fifteen Mysteries of the Rosary thus divided into three groups are but different aspects of the three great Mysteries of our salvation : the Incarnation, the Redemption, Eternal Life. […]

Thus, the Rosary is a Credo : not an abstract one, but one concretised in the life of Jesus who came down to us from the Father, and who ascended to bring us back with Himself to the Father.  It is the whole of Christian dogma in all its splendour and elevation, brought to us that we may fill our minds with it, that we may relish it and nourish our souls with it.

This makes the Rosary a true school of contemplation. […] The Rosary well understood 1  is, therefore, a very elevated form of prayer which makes the whole of dogma accessible to all 2.

The Rosary is also a very practical form of prayer

The Rosary is also a very practical form of prayer: for it recalls all Christian morality and spirituality, by presenting them from the sublime point of view of their realisation in Jesus and Mary.

The Mysteries of the Rosary should be reproduced in our lives. Each of them is a lesson of virtue – particularly in the virtues of humility, trust, patience and charity.

* There are three stages in our progress towards God:

1. The first stage is to have knowledge of the final end, whence comes the desire of salvation and the joy to which that desire gives rise.  This stage is symbolised in the joyful Mysteries, which contain the good news of the Incarnation of the Son of God who opens to us the way of salvation.

2. The next stage is to adopt the means – often painful to nature – to be delivered from sin and to merit Heaven.  This is the stage of the sorrowful Mysteries.

3. The final stage is that of rest in the possession of eternal life.  It is the stage of Heaven, of which the glorious Mysteries allow us to some anticipated glimpse.

* The Rosary is therefore most practical:

1. It takes us from the midst of our too human interests and joys, and makes us think of those which centre on the coming of the Saviour.

2. It takes us from our meaningless fears, from the sufferings we bear so badly, and reminds us of how much Jesus has suffered for love of us, and teaches us to follow Him by bearing the cross which divine Providence has sent us to purify us.

3. It takes us finally from our earthly hopes and ambitions, and makes us think of the true object of Christian hope: eternal life and the graces necessary to arrive there. […]

Try to recite the Rosary the eyes of faith fixed on the living Jesus who is always making intercession for us, and who is acting upon us in accordance with the Mysteries of His childhood, or His Passion, or His glory.  He comes to us to make us like Himself. Let us fix our gaze on Jesus who is looking at us.  His look is more than kind and understanding: it is the look of God, a look which purifies, which sanctifies, which gives peace.  It is the look of our Judge, and still more the look of our Saviour, our Friend, the Spouse of our souls.   A Rosary said in this way, in solitude and silence, is a most fruitful intercourse with Jesus.  It is a conversation with Mary too, which leads to intimacy with her Son.

* But the Rosary is more than a prayer of petition :

– it is a prayer of adoration inspired by the thought of the Incarnate God (Joyful Mysteries) ;

– it is a prayer of reparation in memory of the Passion of Our Lord (Sorrowful Mysteries) ;

– it is a prayer of thanksgiving that the Glorious Mysteries continue to reproduce themselves in the uninterrupted entry of the elect into glory.

Objections and Answers

1. It has sometimes been objected that one cannot reflect on the words and the Mysteries at the same time.

The answer is that it is not necessary to reflect on the words if one is meditating on, or looking spiritually at one of the Mysteries.

The words are a kind of melody which soothes the ear and isolates us from the noise of the world around us, the fingers being occupied meanwhile in allowing one bead after another to slip through. Thus the imagination is kept tranquil and the mind and the will are set free to be united to God.

2. It has also been objected that the monotony of the many repetitions in the Rosary leads necessarily to routine.

This objection is valid only if the Rosary is said badly.  If well said, it familiarises us with the different Mysteries of salvation, and recalls what these Mysteries should produce in our joys, our sorrows, our hopes.

ANY PRAYER CAN BECOME A MATTER OF ROUTINE!  – even the Ordinary of the Mass.   The reason is not that the prayer is imperfect, but that we do not say them as we should – with faith, confidence and love!

(From the book of Fr Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., The Mother of the Saviour and our interior life, Saint-Louis (Missouri), Herder Book Company, 1948, Part II, Chapter VI, Article II.)

Sons of the Church (part II)

admin Apologetics, conciliar Church


Sons of the Church  (part II)

in a time of crisis

By the Reverend Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, O.P.

(Continued)

* * * * *

Too many ecclesiastical dignitaries have abandoned themselves to the modernist mental perversion; they have reached the point at which they no longer find monstrous the habit of affirming contradictories in the same statement because they deem the intellect incapable of knowing truth.  They rather suppose that it [that is, truth] exists somewhere, though where one knows not, a sort of religious noumena  [Editor:  (in Kantian philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.]  beyond reach about which the mind fabricates ingenious, infinitely variable systems over the course the evolution of our species, but always impotent to reach what is.  One thing counts: that these [supposed] systems, ideologies, theologies, be placed at the service of humanity’s development.  They will be appreciated for their power to stimulate a grand ascension toward freedom and progress. 

One who consents to such a warped mentality refrains himself from condemning heretics or heresies and does not deem himself bound by any dogma.   He contemplates with detachment and benevolence the most opposed theses, applying himself to bring out in each one the elements that can prepare a better future and that connect more or less with a so-called evangelical spirit, the Gospel being interpreted as a leaven of an ideal future, but not to be received as a definitive rule faithfully guarded by a divinely-assisted Tradition.   When prelates whose minds have been thus denatured occupy the commanding posts in the Church, it is a cause of unutterable distress for all the faithful.

“Unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved, but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened” (Matt. 24:22).

* * * * *

Some young priests from their very first days in the clergy, pushed by apparently noble motives to aspire keenly to reach the highest ranks in the Church, have offered the devil an easy prey.  The devil has taken them in charge in order to make them succeed, but he has made them pay a heavy price.  In olden times, during the Middle Ages or the early Church, whoever ambitioned the cardinalate, or higher, often had to become an accomplice, at least by his silence, in the sins and prevarications of Christian princes.  Today Christian princes don’t exist anymore; in any case, they have become irrelevant.  Power has passed to the secret societies, Masonic or Communist.  That’s where for the most part the horrible masters of modern times are to be found.  Today, then, a priest who cherishes the ambition to advance in the Church to its highest posts must deal with these princes.  He must become their accomplice.  Could he achieve his goal if he did not consent to become involved, perhaps only by degrees yet genuinely, in a radical perversion of the mind?  For if he refused to allow himself to be gradually won over by the spiritual darkness, he would remain incapable, despite all his efforts, of becoming a useful ally of the occult forces.  Do what he might, he would remain an adversary.  But he has to be an auxiliary; it is for no other reason that the modern Caesar has raised him to a position of command.

It happens that a man or woman, in the throes of passion, opens with a terrifying determination the sacred door of their liberty to the spirit of lust.  The devil becomes their master.  He is as it were invested with the power to precipitate them into the pit; he has opportunities to almost totally paralyze the will of his victims.  Now, the demon of pride is more fearsome than the one of carnal desires.  How powerful, then, will be his hold over the priest who, avid for power in spiritualibus [in spiritual things], has entrusted himself, even only indirectly, in order to be more sure of gaining his ambition, to these formidable occult organizations of our time over which the devil rules as master.  Into what mental contortions will the devil not induce the ambitious priest?  If he does not succeed in getting a grip on himself in time, his reason will be invincibly falsified by the prince of this world.

* * * * *

Were the Church’s plight a hundred times worse, a hundred times more cruel, it is still the Lord who is forever Master and King.  It is to Him that all power has been given; it is before Him that every knee must bow in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, including those in this kind of hell, for the moment painless, which is the modernist sect.  Its harmfulness cannot extend beyond the strict limits set by the Lord, and the Lord only grants it a certain power to obscure, to falsify, and to scandalize in thousands of ways, only for the good of the elect and to augment the gracious splendor of His Church.  We ought not to be fearful, but rather persevere with confidence in the Church of always, the everlasting Church, the Church of all time.

(Prologue to Apologia for the Everlasting Church)

Father Calmel’s Apologia first appeared in the journal Itinéraires, No. 151, March 1971, pp. 104-111.

Sons of the Church (Part I)

admin Apologetics, conciliar Church


Sons of the Church

in a time of crisis

By the Reverend Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, O.P.

(Prologue to Apologia for the Everlasting Church)

Prelates who occupy the most important posts in the Church, misled by the grand chimera of their own desire to find easy, infallible means to achieving once and for all the religious unity of mankind, are working to invent a church without borders in which all men, unconditionally dispensed from renouncing the world and Satan, will soon be united in the bonds of brotherly love. Dogmas, rites, hierarchy, discipline, should one insist, would all be carried over from the first Church, but everything would be bereft of the safeguards willed by the Lord and specified by Tradition. By that very fact, everything would be drained of Catholic vitality, namely grace and holiness. The adepts of the most divers beliefs, and even those who refuse to have any, would enter as equals, but they would enter on equal footing into a dummy church. Such is the present endeavor of the prestigious Master of lies and illusions. Behold the masterwork, of Masonic inspiration, to which he commits his minions–faithless priests promoted as eminent theologians; oblivious or disloyal bishops, if not disguised apostates, rapidly elevated to the choicest honors and invested with the highest prelatures. They spend their lives and lose their souls building a postconciliar Church under the star of Satan.

– Dogmas, affected by relativism because of the new pastoral praxis that refuses to condemn heresy, no longer propose any precise supernatural object. Consequently, in order to accept them, even supposing that the notion still means anything in this case, neither intellectual assent nor purity of heart is required.

– The sacraments are placed within reach of those who do not believe; almost nothing keeps even unbelievers and the unworthy from approaching them, so far have the new ecclesiastical rites, by their instability and fluidity, become alienated from the sacramental sign efficacious in and of itself, divinely fixed by the Saviour once and for all “until He comes again.”

– As for the hierarchy, it is dissolving insensibly into the people of God, of which it is tending to become a democratic emanation, elected by universal suffrage for a provisional function.

Thanks to these unprecedented innovations, their instigators are congratulating themselves for having torn down the barriers that kept out of the Church those who even yesterday, in the recent ante-conciliar period, rejected the Church’s dogmas, spurned the sacraments, and defied the hierarchy. Undoubtedly, as they were understood before the Council, dogmas, sacraments, government, a needful inward conversion, gave the Church the aspect of a fortified city–Jerusalem quae aedificatur ut civitas (Ps. 121:3)–with well-guarded doors and impregnable ramparts. No-one was permitted across the sacred threshold who had not converted.

Henceforth, however, things have been changing before our eyes: doctrines, liturgy, interior life have been subjected to a treatment of dissolution so violent, universal, and perfected that they no longer admit the distinction between Catholics and non-Catholics. Since yes and no, the definite and the definitive, are held to have been surpassed, one wonders what would prevent the non-Christian religions themselves from being a part of the new universal Church, continually updated by ecumenical interpretations.

One wonders about it, at least if one accepts the point of view so many former Council Fathers, circumvented by Vatican II, allowed to be imposed upon them: to forge a heretofore unknown system and a new apparatus in order to win over the world without being exposed to failure, nor suffering, nor persecution, beginning with relativizing the supernatural. But that means nothing, for:

  • On one hand Jesus Christ has said: The servant is not greater than his master; if they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also (John 15:20).
  • On the other hand the supernatural is not formless or modifiable; it is firm and precise; it presents a determined aspect; it has an achieved, definitive configuration; since the Incarnation of the Word, since Redemption by the Cross and the sending of the Holy Ghost, the only supernatural that exists is Christian and Catholic. It has no reality except in Christo Jesu, et Virgine Maria et Ecclesia Christi. That is why if one keeps in one’s soul the viewpoint of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the first twenty Councils, one sees quite well what routs the chimera of ecumenical unity: the duty to bend the knee before the Son of man, author and sovereign dispenser of salvation, but only in the one Church He established.

(To be continued)

Little Catechism on Sedevacantism – PART 2

admin Apologetics


Little Catechism on Sedevacantism – PART 2

(continued)

By Dominicus

Le Sel de la Terre No 79, Winter 2011-2012

The Cassiciacum Thesis

Can you explain what is meant by being pope “materialiter“?

The main difficulty of sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible manner (for she has received from Our Lord the promise that she will endure until the end of the world) while being deprived of her head.

The partisans of the so-called “Cassiciacum Thesis” have come up with a subtle solution: the current pope was validly designated as pope, but he did not receive the papal authority because there was an obstacle in him (heresy).  He is pope materialiter, but not formaliter.

Can you detail the arguments of this “thesis”?

Here are the arguments as summarized by a priest who professes them:

  • The starting point is an induction: the acts of Paul VI (because it was he at that time who was reigning in Rome) contribute to the destruction of the Catholic religion and its replacement by the religion of man in the form of concealed Protestantism. From this comes the certitude that Paul VI does not have the usual intention of obtaining the good / end of the Church, which is Jesus Christ plenum gratiæ et veritatis.
  • The usual intention of obtaining the good of the Church is a necessary condition (the ultimate disposition) for a subject elected pope to receive the communication of pontifical authority which makes him to be with Jesus Christ and hold the role of His Vicar on earth.
  • Consequently, Paul VI is devoid of all pontifical authority: he is not pope formaliter; he is not Vicar of Christ. In a word, he is not pope 3.
  • This necessitates the affirmation that if Paul VI is not pope formaliter, he yet remains pope materialiter, as a simple elected subject, seated on the Pontifical Seat, neither pope nor anti-pope.

Does this solution resolve the difficulties of “pure” sedevacantism?

It does not resolve the main difficulty of sedevacantism: how can the Church continue to be visible?  For some proponents of “the thesis”, there is no longer any hierarchy at all (“the nominations of cardinals and bishops are acts of pontifical jurisdiction, which is precisely absent and which nothing can replace”).  For others, the pope materialiter has power (how?) to constitute a hierarchy materialiter.  But such a hierarchy, devoid of its “form,” is not the visible hierarchy of the Church (no more than the Orthodox hierarchy is the hierarchy of the Church).  Moreover, this theory sets off new difficulties – at least for those who say that the pope materialiter has the power to constitute a hierarchy materialiter – because it implies that the pope materialiter, devoid of authority, still has enough authority to change the laws on papal election.

What do you think of the arguments upon which this solution is based?

This solution is not founded on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, etc.) examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one, prior to the Council, ever imagined this theory of “the absence of the usual intention to obtain the good of the Church” that would form an “obex” (obstacle) to receiving the “being-with-Christ,” the form of the papacy.

It plays on the ambiguity of the word “intention”.  Proponents of the thesis recognize that the intention must be in the person of the pope (“this intention is the ultimate disposition of the subject to receive communication of the pontifical authority”), but at the same time they affirm that it has nothing to do with the personal intention of the pope.  We can agree with them when they say that recent popes harm the common good of the Church – and that is precisely what created the state of necessity – but it remains to be proven that such is truly the personal intention of the popes, and then that such an intention deprives them of authority.

The “Una Cum” Question

Aren’t the sedevacantists right to refuse to name the pope at Mass in order to show that they are not in communion with (“una cum”) a heretic (at least materially) and his heresies?

The expression “una cum” in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that he is “in communion” with the person of the pope and his erroneous ideas, but rather that one wants to pray for the Church “and for” the pope.

In order to be sure of this interpretation, in addition to reading the erudite studies that have been made on this point, it is enough to read the rubric of the missal for the case of a bishop celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church “una cum […] me indigno servo tuo,” which does not mean that he prays “in communion with myself, your unworthy servant” (which does not make sense!), but that he prays “and for myself, your unworthy servant.”

What does St. Thomas Aquinas think of this?

St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, when he comments on the prayers of the Mass (III, Q. 83, A. 4, corpus) equates “una cum” with the expression “et pro”: then the priest commemorates in silence [it is the beginning of the Canon] first those for whom the sacrifice is offered, that is [it is offered] for the Universal Church, and for “those who constitute it in dignity” [the pope, the bishop, the king]; then particular some who offer or for whom this sacrifice is offered [the memento of the living].

But doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that in the Canon one should not pray for heretics?

St. Thomas Aquinas does not prohibit praying for heretics, but merely observes that, in the prayers of the Canon of the Mass, one prays for those whose faith and devotion are known to and tested by the Lord (quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio) (III, Q. 79, A. 7, ad 2). For, he says, in order for this sacrifice to obtain its effect (effectum habet), those for whom one prays must be “united to the passion of Christ by faith and charity.”  But he does not forbid praying for a non-Catholic.  He only means that this prayer will not have the same efficacy as one for a Catholic, and is not provided for in the Canon.

All that can be concluded from this affirmation of St. Thomas is that, if the pope is a heretic (which remains to be proven), then the prayer for him will not have the foreseen effect, “non habet effectum”.

**

What final reflection can be taken from these discussions?

It is not suitable to declare that “the Pope is not pope” (materially or formally) in the name of a “theological opinion”.  On this subject, we refer to an interesting article by Fr. Hurtaud that appeared in the Revue Thomiste.  The author shows that Savonarole thought that Alexander VI had been elected with simony and, for this reason, he was not pope. However, as the invalidity of a “simonous” election was only an opinion, Savonarole asked for the convocation of a council where he brought proof that Alexander VI no longer had the Catholic Faith, and it is in this way that it was certified that Alexander VI had lost supreme jurisdiction.

In conclusion, what should we think of sedevacantism?

It is a position that has not been proven speculatively, and it is imprudent to hold it practically (imprudence that can have very serious consequences – think, notably, of people who deprive themselves of the sacraments on the pretext that they cannot find a priest who has the same “opinion” as they do). That is why Archbishop Lefebvre never entered onto this path, and he even forbade the priests of his Society to profess sedevacantism.  We should trust in his prudence and theological sense.

Translated from the original French article (online: www.dominicainsavrille.fr/les-dominicains-davrille-sont-ils-devenus-sedevacantistes) by filiimariae.over-blog.com.

Little Catechism on Sedevacantism – PART I

admin Apologetics


Little Catechism on Sedevacantism – PART I

By Dominicus

Le Sel de la Terre No 79, Winter 2011-2012

A first edition of this little catechism appeared in Le Sel de la terre 36. This second edition, revised and noticeably enhanced, takes into account the debates and objections raised by the first edition.

Introduction: between Scylla and Charybdis

In the strait of Messina, between Sicily and Italy, there are two formidable reefs: Scylla and Charybdis. It is important, when crossing, to avoid both reefs. Many imprudent or unskilled navigators, wanting to avoid one, were shipwrecked on the other: they fell from Scylla to Charybdis.

Currently, facing the crisis in the Church, there are two errors to avoid: modernism (which, little by little, makes us lose the faith) and sedevacantism (which leans toward schism). If we want to remain Catholic, we must pass between heresy and schism, between Scylla and Charybdis.

In this “Short Catechism”, we study one of the two reefs. But the other must not be forgotten. Under pretext of avoiding the dangers of sedevacantism, the dangers of modernism disseminated by the conciliar Church must not be minimized.

The Position of Archbishop Lefebvre

The position that we are going to put forward is that of Archbishop Lefebvre and that which, at Avrillé, we have always defended. Here is a short summary:

1) Abp. Lefebvre publicly asked himself the question:

      • “We find ourselves truly before an excessively grave dilemma that, I think, has never arisen in the Church. That he who is seated on the Throne of Peter participates in religions of false gods, I do not think that this has ever occurred in the entire history of the Church (Easter 1986). If someone says that the pope is an apostate, a heretic, a schismatic, according to the probable opinion of the theologians (if it were true), the pope would no longer be pope and, consequently, we would be in the “Sede Vacante” situation. It is an opinion; I do not say that it cannot have some arguments in its favor” (18-3-1977).
      • “It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church, for it has some serious arguments. Many indeed are the acts of Paul VI that, accomplished by a bishop or a theologian twenty years ago, would have been condemned as suspect of heresy, favoring heresy” (24-2-1977).

2) However, after reflection, he preferred the opposite solution:

      • “But I do not think that it is the solution that we should take, that we should follow. For the moment, I personally think that it would be a mistake to follow this hypothesis” (18-3-1977).
      • “But this does not mean, for all that, that I am absolutely sure to be correct in the position that I take; I am placing myself there in a prudential manner. It is rather under this area that I place myself, more than under the theological domain, purely theoretical. I think that God asks us to have clear ideas not only from a purely theoretical and theological viewpoint, but also in practice, when things are very difficult and delicate, and to act with a certain wisdom, a certain prudence that can seem a bit in contradiction with certain principles, not to be of pure logic” (5-10-1978).
      • “As long as I do not have the proof that the pope is not the pope, well, I presume that he is, that he is pope. I do not say that there cannot be arguments that can put one in doubt in certain cases. But one must have the proof that it is not only a doubt, a valid doubt. If the argument is doubtful, we do not have the right to take enormous consequences away from it!” (16-1-1979).
      • “The Priestly Society does not accept [this] solution, but, based on the history of the Church and the doctrine of the theologians, thinks that the pope can promote the ruin of the Church by choosing bad collaborators and letting them act, signing decrees that do not use his infallibility, sometimes even by his own admission, and that cause considerable damage to the Church. Nothing is more dangerous for the Church than liberal popes, who are in continual contradiction” (13-9-1982).
      • “In practice, this does not have influence on our practical conduct, because we firmly and courageously reject all that is against the faith, without knowing from whence it comes, without knowing who is guilty” (5-10-1978).

Questions and Answers

What are we talking about?

What is sedevacantism?

Sedevacantism is the opinion of those who think that the most recent popes, since Second Vatican Council, are not true popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occupied, which is expressed in Latin by the formula sede vacante.

Where does this opinion come from?

This opinion was caused by the very grave crisis which has been occurring in the Church since the last Council, a crisis that Archbishop Lefebvre justly called “the third world war.”

The main cause of the crisis has been the dereliction of the Roman Pontiffs, who teach or allow to be propagated very serious errors on the subjects of ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, etc.

The sedevacantists think that real popes could not be responsible for such a crisis, and consequently they consider them not to be “real popes”.

Could you briefly explain what the crisis in the Church consists of?

I will do this by quoting Fr. Gleize:

    • “That which speaks the most is all the speeches published in the Osservatore Romano that constantly reaffirm the principle of religious liberty, state secularism and ecumenism, a principle that is in formal contradiction with the constant and unanimous teaching of the pontifical magisterium from before Vatican II. […]
    • “In the past, it was possible that some popes were not equal to their mission. They could fail to keep, at one time or another, their pastoral role, putting in more or less serious, more or less direct danger the unity of the faith in the Holy Church. But this attitude explains itself for essentially moral reasons. None of these popes were attached to error by intellectual conviction. They all fell short without a fundamentally intellectual adherence to error, and this came sometimes from a lack of courage in the middle of persecution, such as with Liberius, sometimes from a certain naiveté and an excess of mediation, as with Honorius and Vigilius, sometimes even from a sort of theological intemperance as with John XXII. The most serious attitude of all, that of Pope Honorius, warranted the favens hæresim [editor: “favoring heresy”] censure. It did not cause this pope to be condemned as a formal heretic […]
    • “But in view of these isolated cases, the consistent attitude of all the popes since the Second Vatican Council has an entirely different appearance. The daily preaching of these sovereign pontiffs is constantly spotted with false principles of religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality. These are grave errors, and they are the consequence of this “heresy of the 20th century,” to use the expression of Madiran, the heresy of neo-modernism. Constant and repeated errors, from John XXIII and Paul VI to Benedict XVI, errors that are not the consequence of passing weakness or naiveté, but, on the contrary, are the expression of a fundamental adherence of the intelligence, the affirmation of an informed conviction. This is why such a situation is really and truly without precedent.” – cf. Fr. Gleize, Vu de Haut 14 (2008), p.95-96.

Do the sedevacantists agree amongst themselves?

No, far from it. To use the terms of a sedevacantist: the “sedevacantists” are scattered along at least six dividing lines.

SEDEVACANTIST LINES / VARIATIONS

1 Total vacancy

as opposed to

 formal vacancy and material permanence (“Cassiciacum Thesis”)
2 Acceptance of consecrations without apostolic mandate

as opposed to

 refusal of these consecrations
3 Rejection out of the Church of all those who are not sedevacantists

as opposed to

 refusal of such a rejection
4 Ecclesiastical laws keep their imperative force

as opposed to

 the laws are stripped of executory force
5 Acceptance of the principle of a conclave outside of the Roman line

as opposed to

 refusal of such a possibility

 

And one more cause of division among them is the question of just how long has the vacancy of authority lasted (i.e. when did it begin)?

6 since the death of Pius XII since Pacem in Terris [ Editor: an encyclical by John XXIII (April 11, 1963) ] since the death of John XXIII since the proclamation of religious liberty (December 7, 1965) [and our sedevacantist forgot yet one more theory: since the replacement of Paul VI by a double]

This gives us, unless I am mistaken, 160 possibilities.

But that which is common among all sedevacantists is that they think that one must not pray for the pope in public.

Sedevacantist Arguments

On what arguments do sedevacantists base their theories?

They have a priori arguments and a posteriori arguments. [Editor: An a priori argument is (roughly speaking) an argument from the causes. An a posteriori argument is (roughly) an argument by examining effects, and looking backwards.]

A priori, they say, the pope being a heretic, he cannot be a true pope, which can be proven in a theological manner (a heretic cannot be the head of the Church, but John Paul II is a heretic, therefore…) or in a legal manner (Church laws invalidate the election of a heretic, but Cardinal Wojtyla – or Ratzinger – was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore…).

A priori, they say again, the current “pope” was consecrated bishop with the new episcopal consecration rite invented by Paul VI, so he is not a bishop. But to be Pope, one must be Bishop of Rome. Therefore…

A posteriori, they say finally, we note that the actions taken by the popes are bad or erroneous, while they should be covered by infallibility. Therefore, these popes are not really popes.

* The Theological Argument of the heresy of the Pope :

But isn’t it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate?

St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who formally and manifestly became a heretic would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church’s magisterium; and this formal heresy would have to be manifest in the eyes of all. But though the popes since Paul VI, and especially John Paul II, make heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy rather often, it cannot easily be shown that they are aware of rejecting a dogma of the Church. And as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct.

If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II (or another Pope after Vatican II) is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?

No, he should not, because according to the “common” opinion (Suarez), or even the “more common” opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even a heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.

“According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church” (Billuart, De Fide, diss. V, a. III, § 3, obj. 2).

Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-exist with heresy.

* The canonical Argument of the Heresy of the Pope

The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution Cum ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force (even sedevacantist priests recognize it: “We cannot use the bull of Paul IV to prove that the Holy See is currently vacant, but only to prove the possibility that it can happen…” (Fr. F. Ricossa, Solalitium 36, May-June 1994, p. 57-58, note 1). That which remains valid in this constitution is its dogmatic aspect. And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.

Yet the Code in the Gasparri edition refers in a note to the Cum ex apostolatus constitution.

[Editor: The “Gasparri edition” refers to a special edition of Canon Law compiled and annotated with footnotes by the Italian cardinal, Pietro Gasparri. In those notes to the 1917 Code, he provides many links to the sources of that very code.]

Counter-Argument 1: These notes of the code in the Gasparri edition mention the sources of the Code. But this does not mean that all of its sources are still in force!

Counter-Argument 2: The 1917 Code says in Canon 6 (5°) that the punishments that are not mentioned in the code are abrogated. Now, the Cum ex apostolatus constitution was a penal law, because it inflicted the revocation of an ecclesiastical office, and the punishments that it prescribed were not picked up again in the code.

Counter-Argument 3: There is more: even before the new Code, St. Pius X had already abrogated Paul IV’s constitution by his consitition Vacante sede apostolica of December 25, 1904 (§ 29), which declares null any censure able to remove the active or passive voice from the cardinals of the conclave. And Canon 160 of the Code declares that the election of the pope is regulated only by this constitution of St. Pius X.

Counter-Argument 4: The constitution of Pius XII of December 8, 1945, Vacantis Apostolicæ Sedis, which replaced that of St. Pius X, takes the same position on this subject: “No cardinal may be excluded in any way from the active and passive election of the sovereign pontiff, under no pretext nor for cause of excommunication, suspension, interdiction or other ecclesiastical impediment. We lift the effect of these censures for this type of election only, keeping them in force for everything else” (n. 34).

* The Argument of the nullity of the Pope’s Episcopal Consecration

Some sedevacantists argue that the current pope was consecrated bishop with the new rite invented by Paul VI, a rite that they deem invalid; thus, Benedict XVI (or all the popes consecrated bishops with the new rite) is not a bishop or pope.

The new ritual of episcopal consecration comes from a prayer found in Apostolic Tradition, a work apparently from St. Hippolytus and dating from the beginning of the third century. Even if this attribution is probably, it is not agreed upon by all; some think that it is an “anonymous compilation containing elements of different ages”. As for St. Hippolytus, he is thought to have been an antipope for some time before reconciling with Pope St. Pontian at the moment of their common martyrdom (in 235). It is from that same work that Canon number 2 of the new mass issues.

Yet, this prayer of the consecration is taken up again with a few variations in two oriental rites, the Coptic rite used in Egypt and the Eastern Syrian rite, used notably by the Maronites. It was therefore adopted by post-conciliar reformers to manifest the unity between the traditions of the three great patriarchates: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

By reason of this closeness to two Catholic rites, it cannot be affirmed that Paul VI’s prayer is invalid.

Isn’t it true that the new rite of Paul VI is close to the Anglican rite that was declared invalid by Leo XIII?

It is true that the rite of Paul VI is close to the Anglican rite, but not to the rite condemned by Leo XIII. The Anglican and Episcopalian churches also introduced a new consecratory prayer, taken from St. Hippolytus, with the aim to have a rite acceptable to Catholics, after the condemnation of the Anglican ordinations by Leo XIII.

* A Posteriori Arguments

Don’t the sedevacantists claim to find a confirmation of their opinion in the errors of the Council and the harmful liturgical and canonical laws of the Conciliar Church?

Indeed, the sedevacantists think, in general, that the teaching of the Council should have been covered by the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium (OUM), and consequently should not contain any errors. But, since there are errors, for example, on religious liberty, they conclude that Paul VI had ceased to be pope at that moment.4

In reality, if one accepted this reasoning, then it would be necessary to say that the whole Catholic Church disappeared at that moment and that “the gates of hell had prevailed against her”. For the teaching of the ordinary, universal magisterium is that of all the bishops, of the whole teaching Church.

It is simpler to think that the teaching of the Council and of the Conciliar Church is not covered by the infallibility of the ordinary, universal magisterium for the reasons explained in the article on “The authority of the Council” that appeared in Le Sel de la terre 35 (winter 2000-2001).

Can you summarize the essential parts of this argument [Editor: that is, the argument given in that article from Le Sel de la Terre]?

The main reason for which conciliar teaching on religious liberty (for example) is not covered by the OUM is that the conciliar magisterium does not present itself as teaching truths to be believed or held in a firm and definitive manner. Conciliar teaching no longer presents itself as “necessary for salvation” (this is logical, since those who profess it think that it is possible to be saved even without the Catholic Faith).

Since it is not imposed with authority, this teaching is not covered by infallibility. The same thing can be said of liturgical laws (the new mass; new canonizations…) and canonical laws (the new Canon Law…) set forth by these latest popes: they are not covered by infallibility, although normally they should have been.

To be continued…

Translated from the original French article by filiimariae.over-blog.com (online: www.dominicainsavrille.fr/les-dominicains-davrille-sont-ils-devenus-sedevacantistes ).

Friends and Benefactors Letter #20, September 2015

admin Letters to Friends and Benefactors


Letter from the Dominicans of Avrillé

No. 20: September 2015

Corpus Christi

The Importance of Principles

Dear friends, family, and benefactors,

Bishop Charles-Émile Freppel (1827-1891), of the diocese of Angers 1870-1891, highlights the importance of principles in the following passage:

The worst kind of disaster than can afflict an era, or a country, begins when men abandon the truth, or minimize it.  It is possible to recover from any other loss, but one never recuperates from the sacrificing of principles. Men may wander from the straight path from time to time, and public morals may receive some damage from the vice and bad example of such men; but as long as the doctrines of truth are left intact, and in their integrity, nothing is lost.  For, if these doctrines are not abandoned, men and institutions will recover sooner or later; and goodness will return.  However, if society chooses to abandon these principles of truth, all hope of recovery is useless, because it is impossible to construct anything solid and durable without true principles.  Hence the greatest service that one can render to his fellow men – even when weakness and darkness rule the age, and even when no one cares to listen – is to affirm the truth without fear, like a ray of light opening a path through the minds of men.  If the voice of truth does not manage to dominate the noise of the moment, at least it will be received sometime in the future as a messenger of salvation [Bishop Charles-Émile Freppel. Panégyrique de Saint Hilaire à Poitiers. January 19, 1873. Å’uvres de Mgr Charles-Émile Freppel. Paris, Roger et Chernoviz, 1881. p. 234].

Are Principles Unchangeable?

That certain principles are practical – as opposed to speculative principles, which are at the origin of the speculative sciences – does not imply that these principles are only relative.  Principles, even those which are practical, remain unchangeable.  Thus, the truths of the Decalogue are not relative; and the Syllabus (1864) of Pope Pius IX cannot be reformed.  What is changeable, however, is the application of the principles to different circumstances.

For example, the 5th Commandment requires that we “do not kill” (the innocent).  This principle applies in the case of abortion, forbidding the killing of the unborn child.  However, the principle does not apply in the case of the death penalty.  The convict can be judged and executed legitimately because he is not innocent.

Maintaining the Purity of Principles

When circumstances prevent the full application of Catholic principles, these principles cannot be replaced by false ones.  It is characteristic of liberal Catholicism to mix truth and error together.  Such is what took place at Vatican II, which affirms, in Dignitatis Humanae, that “all men are obliged to seek the truth, especially regarding God and His Church” (§1), and yet claims, in the next paragraph, that man has a right to religious liberty, which is a false principle.

The following is a citation of Pius IX’s speech in Rome to pilgrims from Nevers, France in June 1871:

Mixing principles together is the affliction of your country which prevents it from meriting God’s blessings.  I will now express my thoughts and will not hold my peace.  I do not fear these miserable men of the Commune of Paris…  Rather, what I fear is this wretched political code – Catholic liberalism – which is the true scourge of France.  This teeter-tottering between truth and error is destroying the Catholic religion.  Although one must be charitable, doing all that is possible to bring our erring brethren back to the fold, it is not necessary to adopt their opinions.

…to be continued in the next newsletter

Community Chronicle:

April-May-June: Fathers Marie Dominique, Angelico, Marie Laurent and Hyacinthe Marie are busy with regular tertiary meetings in Paris, Brittany, Avrillé, Alsatia, Lyons…

May 23rd: Confirmations for 42 faithful by newly consecrated Bishop Faure. Despite the inconvenience for a large number obliged to watch the ceremony on a projector screen in the vestibule (because of the crowd), all were happy to get together and meet with their fellow “combatants for the Faith” in a joyous and relaxed atmosphere after a beautiful ceremony.

May 24th:  Father Angelico accompanies Bishop Faure for the Pentecost pilgrimage in Rocamadour.

June 3rd: Funeral services for one of our most edifying faithful, Mr. Jean Kerhoas.  Always willing to help out, he was no less diligent in his desire for religious instruction, even taking notes during the Sunday sermon. R.I.P.

Confirmations by Bishop Faure

June 25th-30th: Fathers Marie Dominique and Angelico make a brief trip to the U.S.  After two days visiting with Fr. Ringrose and the faithful at St. Athanasius Church (Vienna VA), they participated in a Confirmation ceremony with Bishop Williamson, organized by Fr. Zendejas in the Connecticut area.

June 27th:  End of the year ceremonies for St. Philomena Elementary School, and St. Thomas Aquinas Boys’ School.  With the Solemn High Mass, buffet lunch with the families, a student play recounting the life of Garcia Moreno, and the graduation award ceremony – complete with musical interludes by the students – it was a very full day for Fathers François Marie, Innocent Marie, Louis Marie, Reginald and Terence, who had the consolation of seeing all their hard work throughout the year come to a wonderful conclusion.

July 11th– 13th:  “True and False Counter-Revolutions” was the theme of our yearly doctrinal seminar dedicated to studying the enemies of the Church and their tactics.  The Friary was honored with the presence of ecclesiastics from many different communities (and continents!), as well as a good crowd of heads of family with a serious desire to study the problems affecting Church and society.

Boys’ summer camp in Brittany

July 14th-29th:  Fathers Reginald and Terence find themselves once again with the high school students for the summer camp in the countryside near Tours.  The summer camps for the middle school boys (in Brittany) and the Our Lady of Fatima Patronage (in Anjou) were also in July.

July 13th –August 1st:  Three retreats were preached at the Friary for men, women, and couples. Fathers de Mérode and Salenave, as well as Fr. Bruno O.S.B. were also there to help out for confessions and retreat instructions.

August 4th-13th:  As every year, all the Fathers and Brothers are back at the Friary for our annual spiritual retreat, placed between the feast of Our Holy Father St. Dominic and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Fr. Pinaud of the Priestly Union Marcel Lefebvre nourished us for ten days with the profound doctrine of Cardinal Pie (1815-1880), the Bishop of Poitiers whose writings had a great influence on St. Pius X.

August 14th-18th: “The Dominican Friendship Days” brought once again to the Friary a large group of tertiairies from all over France (and beyond), for several days of Catholic camaraderie and instruction.

September: The Friary gets back into its normal rhythm of studies, as the school year starts up again for our three clerical brothers (14th September), as well as the Boys’ School and Primary School (7th September).  On October 5th, it will be the turn of our three postulants, who will be joined by several seminarians from Bishop Faure’s seminary located nearby in Avrillé.

News from our work sites:

Mr. Maertens, father of Br. Jan Maria, built us 2 magnificent chests of drawers for the storage of priestly vestments.  Until now, these vestments had to be folded when put away, which was damaging the fragile fabric.

Delivery of the new tractor

For a bit over a year now, the Friary has a tractor, generously donated by a retired farmer, and refurbished by a mechanic friend.  With another donation of equipment for cutting hay and splitting logs, this has allowed us to save much on property maintenance expenses, and fill up our reserve of wood for heating in winter.

The classification and moving of books into the new library is continuing at a regular pace.  We succeeded in acquiring a few metal carts and rails necessary for the installation of moving book shelves (which allow for a more economic use of space).  A blacksmith, friend of the Friary, adapted them to the required dimensions, which enabled us to install a dozen shelves.  We now only need about 20 more to finish the installation.

A picture says a thousand words

During a papal visit to Bolivia in early July, the President Evo Morales offered a blasphemous “hammer and sickle” crucifix to Pope Francis, who accepted it joyfully (contrary to certain rumors).  Morales is a socialist internationally known for his campaign to legalize the trade of coca [used in the production of cocaine].  One of his slogans is “long live coca – death to the Yankees!”  While in Bolivia, Pope Francis publically praised Morales for his “reforms”.   We need to pray now more than ever!   Not only do these recent Popes refuse to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but they actively participate in the spreading of “Russia’s errors” against which Our Lady of Fatima warned us so emphatically.

“November Dead Lists”

Several of you have asked if we accept “November dead lists”.   This pious custom consists in giving a list of deceased loved ones to a priest, who will then keep the list on the altar each time he celebrates Mass throughout the month of November.   If you send us such a list (on paper in a neat, small format), we will be happy to perform this duty to the Poor Souls.   Prayer for the souls in Purgatory is a devotion that has always been in honor in the Dominican Order.   (Please send them directly to Avrillé, France.   However, any donations should still be sent to the Newman Lake address.)

For timely articles and spiritual reading, please go to our website:

www.dominicansavrille.us

To send a donation:

— In the U.S.:

Dominicans of Avrillé, Inc.

P.O. Box 23

Newman Lake, WA. 99025-9998

— In Canada:

The Association of St. Dominic

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

201-21 Street East Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

S7K OB8 Canada

Please specify: CAN$: acc. #40-91531

— In the U.K.:

The Association of St. Dominic

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Edinburgh Comiston Branch, 17 Comiston Road

Edinburgh EH10 6AA

Please specify: Acc # 00105564

For more information:

Couvent de la Haye-aux-Bonshommes

49240 Avrillé, France

The Third Order of Penance

admin FEATURED POSTS - Our Convent section, The Convent


The Third Order of Penance

If you are not familiar with the Dominican Third Order of Penance, the article below will explain the nature of it. If you are ready to request entrance now, please follow the request form below. Thank you!

About the Third Order of Penance
The Dominican Third Order I heard that you have a Third Order. What is ... Read More
A Program for Sanctity
A programme for sanctity by Fr Vayssière O.P. (1864-1940) Union with God 1. By ... Read More
Mortification in our spiritual life
Mortification in our spiritual life By Fr. Martín HARRISON, O.P. How we dread the ... Read More
Letter from the Dominicans of Avrillé No. 31: May 2019
Letter from the Dominicans of Avrillé No. 31: May 20192019: Year of St. Vincent ... Read More
Letter from the Dominicans of Avrillé No.32: September 2019
Letter from the Dominicans of Avrillé No. 32: September 2019Profession before Fr. Prior (August ... Read More

Discussion on the steps of the church concerning Ecclesia Dei Masses

admin The Fight for the Faith


Discussion on the steps of the church concerning Ecclesia Dei Masses.

[ Editor’s note: For those who may not be familiar, “Ecclesia Dei” is a Conciliar Church structure created in 1988 by Pope John Paul II, in response to Archbishop Lefebvre’s episcopal consecrations. It is an umbrella structure which includes pseudo “traditionalist” groups such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, and many others. The Ecclesia Dei structurewas clearly designed by Modernist Rometo keep a firm grip on these organizations who desire the Tridentine Mass but yet whorefuse to speak andact openly againsttheConciliar Church’s errors. Modernist Rome, through Ecclesia Dei,keepsa tight gripon these groups by giving them certain perks:allowing them tocelebrate the 1962 Tridentine Mass, to enjoy friendly relations with Rome, etc. ; but at the same time Rome destroys them slowly, byrequiring themto conform to andnot speak out against theConciliar Church’s errors: the documents of Vatican II, the New Mass, the New Catechism, theconstant scandals of the popes, etc.

Because of the perks granted to these groups by Conciliar Rome, many lesser-informed and otherwise good Catholics,desiring to avoid the evil New Mass andonly attend the Tridentine Mass,have made the mistake ofattending these Tridentine Masses offered by Ecclesia Dei member groups such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter, etc. — putting themselves in great danger of being pulled more and more into the Conciliar Church. ]

Father has a discussion outside the chapel with Philip, a 17 year-old member of the congregation. During the conversation, Philip talks about the last weekend he spent with his friends in Paris. Philip says that the group of friends he was with chose to go to an Ecclesia Dei Mass there 7…

Philip : Why are you making that face, Father ? After all, it is the right Mass !

– Father : Undoubtedly the Mass is good ; but that’s not the main thing.

Philip : Not the main thing ? What more do you need, Father ?

– Father : Well, let me make a comparison. Whiskey is a good thing, isn’t it? (Philip aquiesces, smiling with an air of understanding). Right. But every time you drink whiskey, you are not necessarily carrying out a good action. (Philip understands). So, it’s the same for Holy Mass. That the Mass is good in itself is one thing ; but it is also necessary that assisting at this Mass be a good thing ; it is necessary that assisting at this Mass be a good action.

Philip : Okay, but whiskey and Mass are not quite the same thing, after all ! You seem to be saying that you can do wrong by assisting at a Traditional Mass !

– Father : Exactly, that’s just what I meant! Just as you can make bad use of whiskey, so it is not necessarily good to assist at a True Mass. It can even be bad.

Philip : Well, that beats all I ever heard !

– Father : Philip, I can understand your astonishment. Normally a Catholic should not have to think twice about assisting at a Catholic Mass ; but at the moment in the Church there are a lot of abnormal things. For example, we say Mass in halls transformed as best we can into makeshift chapels. The local clergy is hostile to us. We are called “lepers”, “excommunicated”, “schismatic”… Many people don’t come here because they think that it is wrong to do so. And yet it is the right Mass! Where they are mistaken is in thinking that it is wrong to come here.

Philip : Yes, exactly, they are mistaken, since it is the right Mass !

– Father : No, Philip, be careful. Their problem is not the Mass ; their problem is that they have been told that it is wrong to go to it. It’s completely different. Well, the problem with Ecclesia Dei groups is of the same kind : their Mass is good; okay, but is it good to go to it ? That’s another kettle of fish ! Do you see the distinction ?

Philip : Okay, I see the distinction. But I really don’t see why it’s wrong to go to the Fraternity of Saint Peter or the Institute of Christ the King !

– Father : You see – once you start asking yourself if it is right or wrong to assist at such and such a Mass, you are immediately talking about the priest who says this Mass. Isn’t that interesting ?

Philip : I don’t really see what you’re talking about…

– Father : Okay. Someone says, like you have just done : “I am going to the right Mass with the Fraternity of Saint Peter, with the Institute of Christ the King, with the Society of Saint Pius X, and it is the same Mass in each case”. Yet, assisting at Mass in one or the other is not the same thing. It all depends on the priest who says the Mass.

Philip: Why?

– Father: Because Mass and whiskey are not the same thing! Earlier on, you could have said to me: “But, I’m careful when I drink whiskey; there’s never any problem, since I drink it with moderation!” But Mass is not something which is consumed alone in a corner in a purely private fashion.

Philip: What is it then? Personally, I go to Mass to recollect myself, to pray and to go to Holy Communion. Big deal if the priest belongs to the Fraternity of Saint Peter or the Society of Saint Pius X. After all, that’s something you have to sort out among yourselves!

– Father: Holy Mass is the Church’s highest act of public worship. In other words, it is an act which is first and foremost a social act, in which we honor our God, and we receive its benefits under the authority of the Church, the society which God has instituted in order that He can be honored as He desires.

Philip: That’s a bit harsh, Father…

– Father: Let me start again. In private, you can pray to God quite freely, when you like, how you like; in a certain way it’s your prayer. But the Good Lord has wanted to be also and especially honored by bringing men together around the Cross, by the Mass; and that is the public and official prayer of the Church. She thus renders to God, in the name of all men, all the honor and glory which are due to Him. The Mass is therefore not a private devotion of either those who assist at it or of the priest who says it. It is a common act of worship which supposes that the one who carries out the worship (the priest) has received from the Church the authority to do so. He must depend on a bishop, who in turn depends on the Pope. That is why I was speaking about the authority of the Church.

Philip: But, Father, you are independent of this authority.

– Father: Philip, we have now arrived at the heart of the problem. You are saying the same thing as the Conciliars and their followers when they say that it is not permissible to assist at our Masses. Once more, they don’t say this because the Mass we say is bad; they say it because we are resisting the hierarchy, resisting Rome. And we in turn say: you must not assist at Ecclesia Dei Masses because they submit to the Conciliar hierarchy.

Philip: If I understand correctly, then, the nub of the problem is submission to the current hierarchy?

– Father: Exactly! Normally in the Church, a priest is subject to his bishop, who is subject to the Pope; thus he receives a mission to celebrate the Mass and the other sacraments for a portion of the Church’s faithful. However, for about forty-five years now, the fact is that, in order to keep the Faith, the faithful have asked those priests who also wanted to keep it, to take care of them, to the point of resisting the bishops and the Pope. Their aim was not to resist for the sake of resisting, but to defend their Faith faced with the decisions of Rome which were contributing to the loss of Faith among the faithful.

Philip: Which decisions?

– Father: Well, for example, the promulgation of the New Mass of Paul VI in 1969. But before that there was the Council, with several bad texts, notably on ecumenism and religious liberty. Later, there were the changes in the other sacraments, then the new Canon Law in 1983. There were all the scandals of ecumenism, such as Assisi in 1986. And then there was the fierce struggle against Archbishop Lefebvre who, as he often said himself, was only doing what he had done throughout his life with the approbation of Rome. In 1988, the Archbishop consecrated bishops because he had understood that Rome wanted to destroy Tradition. The Faith of the faithful continued to be threatened. Here is the main thing which must be understood: the hierarchy, the bishops and the Pope, are there to lead the priests and the faithful in the Faith. If they do not do this, the faithful and the priests must resist and seek to keep the Faith, which is, at the end of the day, a higher form of submission.

Philip: Alright… But, how do the Ecclesia Dei Masses fit in with all that? Will I lose my Faith there?

– Father: You have to look at the problem from the other end…

Philip: (Interrupting) From the other end?

– Father: Yes, the other end. The question of knowing if I will lose the Faith is indeed capital. But, we must also ask ourselves: what is the correct attitude of a man of Faith in relation to Ecclesia Dei Masses? In the question you asked me, isn’t there something of the following attitude implied: if I’m careful, since it’s the right Mass, there will be no problem, just like me drinking the whiskey. Am I wrong in saying this?

Philip: No, Father, I agree!

– Father: Therefore, we must look at the other end, the one which I explained earlier. The Mass is above all a public and hierarchical act. The Mass of an Ecclesia Dei priest is the Mass of a priest who, at least officially, obeys the local bishop and the Pope; a priest who will therefore from time to time receive his bishop for ceremonies; a priest who does not preach that the New Mass is bad, dangerous for the Faith; a priest who will therefore gather around himself faithful who are weaker in their Faith, less well informed on the serious dangers which threaten Catholic life in the Conciliar Church; a priest who, if he is logical with himself, thinks that the situation in the Church today is basically normal, in any case normal enough to render a public resistance illegitimate; a priest who, by obeying liberal and modernist authorities, will inevitably deviate; finally, a priest who betrays everything Archbishop Lefebvre did, who betrays souls and tricks them by making them believe, by his public submission to the hierarchy, that the Pope truly leads his sheep and lambs in the paths of the True Faith…

Philip: You’re going a bit far there, Father!

– Father: The Archbishop spoke like that in his time! An Ecclesia Dei priest, right now, does not have a just position in the Church. He is not in order with the Good Lord. He is not in the truth. He is between two stools, torn between his desire to do good and his submission to to the Conciliar authorities. His sermons necessarily feel the effects of this, as well as the bookstall and the periodicals which are on sale there. There will also be diocesan documentation at the back of the church. There is also the serious risk of allowing himself to become lukewarm over time by being in contact with faithful who are less well informed in the Faith, as well as the risk of letting himself be attracted either by a more lenient doctrine, or, as the case may be, by the sympathy of the people or other priests.

Philip: So, you can never go to an Ecclesia Dei Mass?

– Father: You can never offend God! These Masses are not for us! If, for exceptional reasons you have to be present at an Ecclesia Dei ceremony, then you should keep a discreet attitude, avoiding giving the impression that you adhere to their submission to the bishops and the Pope – for example, by abstaining from receiving Holy Communion. Because you also have to think about the example you give to others around you.

Philip: What about if it’s the only Mass you can get to on a Sunday?

– Father: If you have understood our conversation, then you will be able to conclude yourself that in this case, even on a Sunday, you are not obliged to go to such Masses. You cannot be obliged to assist at a Mass of a priest who does not publicly profess that the Conciliar church puts the Faith of the faithful in danger. It’s not possible to be obliged in these conditions. The Good Lord will give you graces in another way, if only by rewarding your courageous fidelity and your attachment to the truth.

Philip: To the truth?

– Father: Yes, to the truth. Let’s summarize a little. At the beginning, I was saying: the Ecclesia Dei Mass is good, but that is not the question. The question is: is it really good to assist at it? By this Mass do I really, in all truth, attach myself to the Church and to Our Lord? The answer is no, because the Ecclesia Dei priest is not in a true position, he does not resist the bad shepherds, whereas he should. He fools himself, and fools the people. With him, under his influence, under his priestly authority, how could you expect to find a real love of the truth, of Our Lord, of the Church, and even of the Pope? The priest is in error in an essential matter!

Philip: Undoubtedly, it all goes much farther than I thought!

– Father: Yes, it must be said that it’s not obvious. Today we have to form ourselves more than ever, in order to know what we are doing. Danger is everywhere. But it is also an extraordinary time, as Archbishop Lefebvre used to say, because it pushes us to love the Church and Our Lord Jesus Christ more truly, and to remain strong in the Faith! And it is also the best service of charity that we can render to those who still find it hard to grasp all the difficulties of the current situation. Let us be witnesses of the truth and of the Will of God!

[This text written by Fr Jacques Mérel (SSPX) was published in the Newsletter of Priory Saint-Jean-Eudes (France) in July/August 2008. It was the official position of the Society since the time of Archbishop Lefebvre. Would all the priories publish it again in the year 2015 to warn their faithful against the Ecclesia Dei Masses?]

Signup form for the Rosary Confraternity

admin The Rosary Confraternity


Enrolling in the Rosary Confraternity

To enroll in the Dominican Rosary Confraternity, please do all of the following:

1.  Print and complete the following form below

Remember:  if you are also enrolling your children, please complete a separate form for each child.

2.  Sign the form.

A signature makes it official, and without which we cannot enroll you.    Any person above the age of reason needs to sign his own form (for example, even a seven year old should sign it).

3.  Mail the completed form(s) to:

Rosary Confraternity Secretary

PO BOX 134

ST. MARYS, KS   66536

God bless and reward you, and Our Lady protect you and yours!

– The Dominican Fathers of Avrille

The signup form should appear shortly beneath this.  If it does not, you can view the form directly by clicking here.

 

https://dominicansavrille.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Registration-Form-for-the-Confraternity-of-the-Holy-Rosary-cc794828-3804-49a3-946c-93dc128d4d69.pdf

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

admin Apologetics, Liturgical Seasons, Writings of the Dominican Fathers


The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

a text of Fr Garrigou-Lagrange O.P.

1. What is meant by the Assumption ?

The whole Church understands by the term that the Blessed Virgin Mary, soon after her death and glorious resurrection, was taken up body and soul to Heaven to be forever enthroned above the angels and saints.

The term Assumption is used rather than Ascension since, unlike Jesus who ascended to Heaven by his own power, Mary was lifted up by God to the degree of glory for which she had been predestined. […]

2. Was the Assumption revealed ?

Without a divine revelation, the Assumption would not be capable of being defined a dogma of faith, since the motive of faith is the authority of God in revelation. […]

Hence, that the Assumption should have been known as certain and capable of being proposed to the whole Church for acceptance, a public revelation must have been made to the Apostles, or at least to one of them – Saint John, for example. Note that this revelation must have been made to an apostle since the deposit of common and public revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle [Saint John]. It may have been made explicitly or implicitly. […]

3. Was the privilege of the Assumption explicitly revealed ?

Everything tends to indicate that the privilege of the Assumption was explicitly revealed to the Apostles, or at least to one of them ; and this was transmitted subsequently by the oral Tradition of the liturgy ; otherwise there is no explanation of the universal Feast of the Assumption, found so clearly from the 7th century on, by which time the Assumption itself was already the object of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. […]

4. Is the Assumption implicitly revealed in the Holy Scripture ?

– From the words of Gabriel the Archangel at the Annunciation and from St Elisabeth at the Visitation :

* « Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee ; blessed art thou amongst women » (Lc 1, 28) ;

* « Blessed art thou amongst women » (Lc 1, 42).

we can conclude that the Assumption was implicitly revealed in the Holy Scripture :

Mary received fullness of grace and was blessed by God among women in an exceptional way. But this exceptional blessing negatives the divine malediction to bring forth children in pain and to return to dust (Gen 3, 16-19). Mary was therefore preserved through it from corruption in her body: her body would not return to dust but would be restored to life in an anticipated resurrection. […]

– « Thanks be to God, who hath given us the victory through Our Lord Jesus-Christ » (1 Co 15, 57) ; « Through death, [Jesus-Christ] might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil » 5 Hebr 2, 14).

Christ ‘s perfect victory over Satan included victory over sin and death. But Mary, the Mother of God, was most intimately associated with Jesus on Calvary in His victory over Satan. Hence she was associated with Him in His victory over death by her anticipated resurrection and her Assumption.

5. What are the consequences of this dogma for our soul ?

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin along with the Ascension of Our Blessed Lord, crowns our faith in the objective completion of the work of the Redemption, and gives our hope a new guarantee.

Finally, the just man lives by his faith. Hence he finds in the solemn definition of a revealed truth a form of spiritual nourishment which increases his faith, strengthens his hope, and makes his charity more fervent.

(Fr Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life ; St-Louis, Missouri ; B. Herder Book Company ; 1948 ; Part one, Chapter IV, Article II, « The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin », extracts.)