Archbishop Lefebvre

The Motu Proprio Traditionis Custodes

admin conciliar Church, FEATURED POSTS - Articles and Texts section

The Motu Proprio

  Traditionis Custodes

From Pope Francis

July 16, 2021


Dogs, Wolves and Sheep Skin

Editorial from Le Sel de la terre 117

(Summer 2021)

Domini canes: was the pun likening the sons of St. Dominic (Domini-cani) to the dogs of the Lord (Domini canes) approved – even prompted – by Heaven itself?

The way in which the founder of the Preachers was announced to his mother in a dream, under the figure of a little dog, might suggest this.

In any case, this underlines the originality of a religious order that owed its birth to a heresy, that of the Albigensians, and was specifically founded to respond to it.

“Like a shepherd’s dog, Dominic preached: Bringing back to the path the lost sheep. And knowing how to bark when the wolf roamed.” (hymn to St. Dominic).

* Domini canes or Traditionis Custodes?

But if the eighth centenary of his entry into Heaven (August 6, 1221) provided a beautiful opportunity to evoke St. Dominic, a burning current event has caught up with this anniversary. This summer, in the Church, much more than Domini canes, there was talk of Traditionis Custodes: the sarcastic title of a Motu Proprio signed by Pope Francis on July 16, when the Latin text was still unknown – it still is – and was probably not even written. A minor detail, compared to the substance of the matter, but indicative of the ever-increasing cynicism of conciliar Rome.

There was a time when it tried to keep up appearances. Now it is displaying its Machiavellianism more and more openly.

When Francis sticks this fine Latin title on a text that despises Latin as much as it despises Tradition, when he invokes collegiality to impose his personal ideas, when he trumpets that he wants to restore the liturgical authority of the bishops, but in fact grants them only the right to forbid the traditional liturgy and denies them the right to authorize it more broadly, no one can be deceived. Such obvious lies do not even try to be believed. The situation at least gains clarity.

* The Wolf and the Sheep Skin

Since 2007, like a sheep’s skin, the distinction posed by Benedict XVI between the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the one Roman rite 1 masked the reality. Francis is tearing apart this pretense. An indissoluble link unites Vatican II, the new Mass of Paul VI, and the new morality of Francis (which only logically applies the principles of the Council). It is the new religion. The conciliar wolf is naked.

Archbishop Lefebvre had perceived its voice as early as 1965:

“This pastoral Constitution is neither pastoral nor emanates from the Catholic Church […] never has the Church spoken like this. […]. We know the voice of Christ, our Shepherd. This one we do not know. The garment is that of the sheep; the voice is not that of the Shepherd, but perhaps that of the wolf 2. “

* The Ecclesia Dei Institutes facing reality

When the shepherd turns into a wolf, resistance is a duty:

“When the shepherd turns into a wolf, it is up to the whole flock to defend itself. According to the rule, no doubt, doctrine descends from the bishops to the faithful; and the subjects must not judge their leaders in matters of faith. But in the treasure of Revelation there are essential points, of which every Christian, by the very fact of being a Christian, has the necessary knowledge and obligatory custody 3.”

For fifty years, Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, Father Calmel O.P. and many others, have set an example of this resistance, clearly denouncing the errors of Vatican II (without, however, allowing themselves to judge and then recuse the leaders of the Church, as the sedevacantists want to do).

For thirty years, the Ecclesia Dei Institutes have tried to find a middle way, keeping the traditional liturgy without rejecting Vatican II. But the pope himself is dispelling their illusions, peeling off the sheep’s skin. Francis himself is destroying the famous hermeneutic of continuity, laboriously built up by Benedict XVI.

The Ecclesia Dei Institutes are up against the wall. Will they make the choice of consistency? Will they recuse Vatican II, like Archbishop Vigano or Bishop Schneider?

We need to pray for the future.

We must pray for this intention.

1 ‑ Benedict XVI, Motu proprio Summorum pontificum (July 7, 2007).

2 ‑ Excerpt from a text delivered by Archbishop Lefebvre to the Council Secretariat on September 9, 1965, concerning the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes.

3 ‑ Dom Guéranger, Liturgical Year, Time of the Septuagesima, Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Conciliar Bishops in Schools of Tradition

admin conciliar Church, The Fight for the Faith ,

Conciliar Bishops in Schools of Tradition

Excerpts from Le Sel de la Terre 109 (Summer 2019)

Two recent events seem to mark a new stage in the process of reconciliation between the Conciliar Church and the Society of Saint Pius X.

— The first event is an official visit by Monsignor Egan, Bishop of Portsmouth, to the SSPX School of Saint Michael in England.

Bishop Egan was invited by the principal to visit the school on March 8, 2019. During the visit, he led the prayer of the Rosary for the children in the chapel. The Oblate Sisters of the school refused to participate in this prayer.

After Bishop Egan’s visit, the principal told the children that Bishop Portsmouth was a man of good will, and that he was not bad.

It is possible that, as a private person, this bishop is “a good man,” but he is part of the system which is called the Conciliar Church.

For example, he paid a visit to the Southampton Mosque on June 5, 2017 to join the Friday prayers. Hère are some excerpts from his speech:

So on behalf of all Catholic Christians in this region, I offer you today our sincerest greetings and prayers for a Happy Ramadan. Ramadan Mubarak! This morning in Rome, our Pope, Pope Francis, has just sent a special message to all our Muslim friends across the world, to assure you of our prayers during this time of fasting, prayer and charity. […] Both Muslims and Catholics believe the Earth is holy; it belongs to God. It’s His work and so we must treat it with respect. So let us pray that the ecological crisis humanity is facing will call everyone in the world to a profound interior conversion, and to a renewed care for the Earth, our common home. […] Great Britain is a highly secular society. Yet you and I, Muslims and Christians, we are people of religion, faith and spirituality. We believe in God, and we believe that every human being is called to know Him, serve Him and love Him, to worship Him and to respect Him, and to find in Him ultimate happiness. It’s our task to witness to this in society, so that other people, those who say they have no religion, those who say they’re not sure, those who are lost or on the margins, can find their way home to Him. […] Please pray for me, and for the Catholic community here in Southampton and across our whole diocese 1.

It is clear that this bishop is spreading the modernism of Vatican II and that he is not unobjectionable.

Also, this visit provoked, among other things, the resignation of the superior of the Oblates, Sister Mary-Elizabeth.

— The second event is the arrival of Bishop Vitus Huonder, former bishop of the Diocese of Chur, to a school of the SSPX in Switzerland to retire there.

Vitus Huonder was born on April 21, 1942 in Trun, in the canton of Graubünden. He studied at the Abbey of Einsiedeln, at the Pontifical Athenaeum of Saint Anselm in Rome, and finally at the University of Freiburg again in Switzerland where he obtained his university degree and in 1973 his doctorate in theology.

He was ordained a priest on September 25, 1971 (thus in the new rite) by Bishop Johannes Vonderach and consecrated bishop of Chur (this diocese includes the cantons of Graubünden and Zurich) on September 8, 2007 by Bishop Amédée Grab. Hence arises the question of the validity of his ordination and consecration. We know that Archbishop Lefebvre did not hesitate to conditionally ordain those of the new rite.

As to the bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI, the only known example of a bishop who joined Tradition is Bishop Lazo 2. This return to Tradition took place after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, but the SSPX has prudently kept away from ensuring him about episcopal functions.

Until the first of January of 2011, Monsignor Huonder was President of the European Community of Labor of the Christian Churches in Switzerland, where he gave the position to “anglican pastor” Adèle Kelham, until then Vice-President of the CTEC (Council of Christian Churches in Switzerland) 3.

Bishop Huonder was also a delegate of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference in the Jewish-Roman Catholic Dialogue Commission (JRGK for Jüdisch/Römisch-katholische Gesprächskommission der Schwei in German).

Under his chairmanship, this Commission designed and prepared the first Dies Judaïcus (Day of Judaism). It took place in Switzerland on March 20, 2011, and then was extended to other countries. We read in the message of Bishop Huonder:

On the second Sunday of Lent, March 20, 2011, the Swiss Episcopal Conference establishes the Dies Judaicus, the Day for the Jewish People. […]

This day has a double purpose. If the first objective of the Dies Judaicus is to return to the past, considering the people of the twelve tribes and the origin of the Christian faith, the effective reality of solidarity with the Jewish people reminds us of the permanent and ever present responsibility of the Church towards the Jewish people.

The terrible aggressions against this people during the Second World War led the Church to renew this responsibility and to make these declarations that we can read in the conciliar document Nostra Aetate. […]

In view of the reality that anti-Semitism has spread again in recent years, the Church once again feels the need to ask for solidarity in our country with the Jewish people. […]

I would like to highlight here the words of Saint Paul, who refers to our Jewish brothers and sisters: “because the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11,29).4 If the gifts and the call are irrevocable from God, that can only mean one thing: that the God and Father of all men pursues his plan of salvation for Israel. God is following His plan of salvation even today with the chosen people. He does not let his people fall. He also leads them in our days, because he seeks the salvation of all men: “[…] He wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2, 4).

From there, we want to pray that this irrevocable grace and call granted to Israel bear fruit even today, that they favor justice and mutual respect, and also contribute to unity and peace between all peoples 5.

In 2015, Bishop Huonder participated in discussions with the authorities of the Society of St. Pius X.

We publish here an interview of Bishop Huonder published in the Tagespost 6, and an excerpt from the letter of Monsignor Huonder to his diocesan alumni where he explains that “the intention of Pope Francis” in this process is “to integrate” [the Society of Saint Pius X].

Monsignor Huonder Interview of April 11, 2019

An interview with Bishop Huonder with Oliver Maksan was published in the Tagespost of April 11, 2019. We extract the passages which concern his coming to a school of the Society of Saint-Pius X.

The Tagespost:

Monsignor, you will spend your retirement in an institution of the Society of Saint Pius X. Did you have to obtain permission from the Holy Father to settle in a school of the Society?

Bishop Vitus Huonder:

No, because that is said in a letter to the Society from the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller. And the Prefect speaks with authority and with the approval of the Pope. But I have informed the Holy Father.

The Tagespost:

You are supposed to be the link between the Society and Rome. How did you get to this role?

Bishop Vitus Huonder:

For a long time I have been involved in the process of dialogue between Rome and the Society. Since the Headquarters of the SSPX are based in Menzingen, Switzerland, it was thought that a Swiss bishop should be involved. That’s why the Ecclesia Dei Commission, in charge of dialogue with the Society, asked me. This led to constant contact with the representatives of the Society here in Switzerland. I sent the reports to Rome. Now I will continue carrying out this mission. My main concern is the unity of the Church. The division in the Church must be overcome. We must not forget: The Society of Saint Pius X has many followers.

The Tagespost:

Your position is informal. It does not have concrete negotiating powers, but you try to be a bridge by being with them.

Bishop Vitus Huonder:

Yes, my role is mainly informal. But that also has its effects. For example, in the Year of Mercy, when the priests of the Society received permission from the Pope to give absolution. I was involved. I myself proposed to Pope Francis that he also had mercy on the Society and gave them powers. A year later I saw him again and he said he would accept my proposal. This encouraged me to continue on the path of unity with the Society.

The Tagespost:

Now this path has been followed for years without any agreement being reached. There seemed to be an approach under the direction of the former Superior General, Bishop Fellay. Under the new Superior Pagliarani, one has the impression that there is again an ice age, which is no longer about practical questions of integration in the Church, but about difficult doctrinal questions.

Bishop Vitus Huonder:

This may seem like that to the outside world. But there were also doctrinal concerns in the Society under the direction of Bishop Fellay. Maybe now they are getting a little more precise again. I do not know if a new era of ice is coming. But, above all, we have to work on this so that a good solution is reached.

The Tagespost:

How is that? What would the Society have to do now, what would Rome have to do to reach an agreement?

Bishop Vitus Huonder:

In the first place, it would be necessary to recognize the commitment of both parties, even if they have not yet reached a theological agreement. The Society should positively underline the seriousness of the Apostolic See. The Apostolic See, in turn, must appreciate the efforts of the Society and take its concerns more seriously.

In the Society one should not have the impression that they are welcomed in order to encircle them in some way. Then it would be easier to solve the theological problems that really exist.

The Tagespost:

Should the Society accept the Council in its entirety? Or can there also be forms of gradual recognition, as do Council documents which, by their weight, are not all on the same level?

Bishop Vitus Huonder:

Without a doubt, we should base ourselves on this principle. Not all the documents of the Council have the same value. Above all, the documents of the Second Vatican Council must be considered again, with more force, as a development of the previous period. On the part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it would be necessary to link more strongly with the pre-conciliar Magisterium in order to facilitate the recognition of the Council to the Society. It is about better demonstrating the continuity of doctrine.

Farewell letter from Bishop Vitus Huonder to his former diocesans

On the 20th of May, 2019, Bishop Vitus Huonder wrote to his former diocesans in order to explain the reasons for his exit.

[…] Ich selbst nehme nun, wie bereits bekannt, meinen Wohnsitz im Wohntrakt des Priesterhauses im Institut Sancta Maria in Wangs/SG. Dieses Institut gehört zur Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. Im Sinne von Papst Franziskus werde ich mich bemühen, dort zur Einheit der Kirche beizutragen, indem ich nicht ausgrenzen, sondern unterscheiden, begleiten und integrieren helfen möchte.

I myself, as is already known, have chosen to move to the building of the priests of the Sancta Maria Institute, in Wangs (St. Gallen), belonging to the Society of Saint Pius X. In the intention of Pope Francis, I will endeavor to contribute to the unity of the Church wishing to help, not to marginalize, but to discern, accompany and integrate 7. […]

Translation by J.F.

Addendum:

Sunday August 4, and Thursday August 15 (for the Feast of the Assumption of Our Lady) Bp Huonder celebrated a solemn High Mass (with Deacon and Subdeacon) and preached in Oberriet (German Switzerland), an important priory of the SSPX (350 faithful).

1 — See: http://www.portsmouthdiocese.org.uk/enews/mosque-visit.php

2 — See his beautiful profession of faith in Le Sel de la terre 26, p. 162. He said among other things: “I am not of the Rome of the Masons. Pope Leo XIII condemned Freemasonry in his encyclical Humanum Genus in 1884. Additionally, I am not of the Rome of the modernists. Pope Saint Pius X condemned modernism in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, in 1907. I do not serve Rome controlled by Freemasons who are the agents of Lucifer, the prince of demons.” Is Bishop Huonder ready to make such a declaration?

3 — https://www.cath.ch/newsf/l-une-des-rares-femmes-a-remplir-une-telle-fonction-au-plan-mondial-elle-remplace-mgr-vitus-huonder/

4 — See on this subject: “Against the diversion of Romans 11, 29,” in Le Sel de la terre 58, Fall 2006, p. 10-16.

5 — http://www.bischoefe.ch/dokumente/botschaften/message-pour-le-dies-judaicus-20-mars-2011.

6 — Die Tagespost is a newspaper appearing three times a week (Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday}. Formerly known as Deutsche Tagespost, its subtitle is Catholic Journal on politics, society, and culture. It is published in Würzburg.

7 — It is difficult not to see in this sentence an allusion to the deplorable chapter VII of the exhortation Amoris lætitia (March 19, 2016), which exhorts towards “a pastoral discernment filled with merciful love, which is ever ready to understand, forgive, accompany, hope, and above all to integrate.”

Sermon of His Excellency Bp. Gerardo Zendejas given in Avrillé (France) for the Consecration of the Holy Oils and Chrismal Mass of the Holy Thursday

admin conciliar Church, Liturgical Seasons, The Fight for the Faith , ,

Sermon of His Excellency Bp. Gerardo Zendejas

given in Avrillé (France)

for the Consecration of the Holy Oils

and Chrismal Mass of the Holy Thursday

April 18, 2019

Picture

Dear Rev. Prior, Priests, Brothers and Religious,

My Dear Brethren,

As Catholics, we believe that there are four marks in the Catholic Church: One, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic. Needless to say that Catholic Church has the power to produce saints. This is the mark of sanctity. Absolutely God sends his grace from above as source of holiness. For that purpose Our Lord Jesus Christ has instituted seven sacraments in order to be a common way of sanctification, prefigured under the Mosaic Law and accomplished under the Law of the Gospel by the true and unique Messiah – our Lord Jesus Christ

A sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Jesus Christ in order to give grace, which we need for the eternal salvation of our soul. Taking human nature into account, Our Lord linked an invisible grace, for example to be child of God by adoption, to visible a sign – like water – when is used for Baptism. In other words, man stands in need of perceptible outward signs so that can realize and communicate spiritual realities. In a way, sacraments are symbols, however they signify what they perform.

Catholic Tradition has transmitted that there are three essential elements in a sacrament: matter, form and intention. Certainly, there is an immemorial use of OIL in the administration of some sacraments. For instance, it is essential to use Holy Chrism (a mix between Olive Oil and Balsam) in the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Concerning the administration of sacraments in preserving their substance, Traditional teaching including the common teaching of the Church and theologians, have transmitted those matter, form and intention, and have religiously expressed them in prayers and gestures by the Roman Ritual or Eastern Liturgical Rites. Indeed, after SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL THESE RITES WERE MODIFIED. Why?

Here are some dates of modification:

1968 a new rite of priestly Ordination

1969 a New Mass

1969 a new rite of Baptism

1969 a new rite of Matrimony

1971 a new rite of Confirmation

1972 a new rite of Extreme Unction

1973 a new rite of Penance

1988 a new rite of exorcism, etc..

So, in 1970 there was installed a new matter for the holy Oils, not only enforcing a different kind of oil, but also granting the fact of blessed oils instead of consecrating them.

The new Rites – in general – do relativize the essential intention in administering Sacraments because undermine the truths of Catholic Faith. For instance, OLIVE OIL from Apostolic times was considered as the proper unique matter. The Ritual for the consecration of Holy Oils, which we are going to use in a few minutes, expresses during the preface that the olive oil was chosen among other trees for the signification of tree of peace and light – arbor pacis et lucis. It says that Noah had received some leaves of Olive tree, as signal of peace from God after the Deluge; also how Our Lord – praying in the Garden of Olives – willed to sanctify those olive trees in order to sanctify us when we offer ourselves to God, in particular when a person gives oneself to God in priestly or in religious life. In fact, for purpose of validity in administering the Sacrament of Confirmation the holy Chrism is essentially needed to be from olive oil mixed with balsam.

Otherwise, on December 3, 1970 the Congregation of Rites authorized the use of other vegetable oils in the administration of Sacraments, approved by Pope Paul VI. In addition, in canon 847 the new Canon Law (1983) reads: “In administering the sacraments in which holy oils must be used, the minister must use pressed olives OR OTHER PLANTS….. consecrated or BLESSED by a bishop.”

Nevertheless, the Congregation of Rites gave no reason to justify that something that has always been understood as INVALID (other kind of oil), later had suddenly considered to be VALID and enforceable. If Catholic Tradition has always refused to change the essential elements of the sacraments, it is because Jesus Christ has instituted them.

After Vatican II, very many priests had been erroneously indoctrinated through their preparatory years of formation, so that they could deliberately be weak in learning Tradition, and strong in Modernism. Their Novus Ordo modified ways in considering the sacraments, not only affect the priests’ believing but also the faithful’s beliefs in presiding community celebrations or interacting in social functions. Due to constant defects and excesses, the new Rites of sacraments are projecting a different way of believing.

That is the reason why Archbishop Lefebvre wisely RESISTED these innovations in order to preserve our Faith and the grace of God, so that the four marks of the Church could be preserved but in particular that one of Sanctity, for the Greater glory of God and the eternal salvation of many souls.

Let’s thank to Our Lord, during this ceremony, for the institution of the sacraments on Holy Thursday – the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders because He also wanted to consecrate the ministers of the sacraments. That’s why He consecrated the first bishops in order to preach the Gospel throughout the world with its Traditions. We therefore should pray for the fidelity of Traditional Bishops, in spite that some of them want to play the betrayal role of Judas Iscariot.

In concluding, more than ever let’s thank to Notre Dame de Paris for having sent the French Prelate, Archbishop Lefebvre, to preserve our Catholic Episcopacy, and Catholic priesthood, in using the Traditional Rite of Sacraments, particularly that one of consecration of Holy Oils for their validity.

As the statue of Notre Dame remained safe after and in spite of last Monday burning fire, the Archbishop’s stands for Tradition shall remain safe in spite of the burning fire of Vatican II destructive innovations. Therefore, let’s once again thank to Notre Dame of Paris for remaining at the traditional main Altar in the Cathedral after last Monday burning fire, either way if it was provoked by accident or by incident, God knows. But what we really know is that in spite of such fire and smoke, Our Lady wanted to remain at the foot of her beloved Son’s cross, enhanced by Royal Crowns in Paris, as A TESTIMONY that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Mystical Body of Christ. The Catholic Church will not be destroyed, and Notre Dame of Paris Cathedral shall be restored. Absolutely, the Mother of God encourages us to keep the Deposit of the Faith transmitting the mystery of the Redemption, in spite of Vatican II diabolical confusion. The Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ is always prevailing because He is True God, True Man and True King!!!

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, AMEN

Sermon of Bishop Gerardo Zendejas in Avrillé – February 9, 2019

admin FEATURED POSTS - Articles and Texts section, Our seminary, Spirituality ,

Sermon of Bishop Gerardo Zendejas in Avrillé for taking of Cassocks, Tonsures, First and Second Minor Orders for Saint-Louis Grignion-de-Montfort Seminary and the Dominicans

Saturday February 9, 2019

Picture 1

+ In the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Dear Bishop Faure, Father Prior, Priests, Brothers, Sister, my dear Brethren….

+

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, our venerable Founder, has always encouraged us with his 1974 doctrinal declaration, like a testament for preserving Catholic Tradition as essential element in Catholicism. Here are some exerts of his words…

“Even though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” (Gal. 1;8)…

“… The lex orandi cannot be profoundly changed without changing the lex credendi. The New Mass is in line with the new catechism, the new priesthood, new seminaries, new universities, and the charismatic or Pentecostal church, all of which are in opposition to orthodoxy and to the all time Magisterium.

This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and Modernism, entirely is corrupt. It comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform.

It is for this reason that, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of the formation of priests under the star of all times Magisterium, in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to future generations….”

My dear brethren, let us give thanks to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Who allows us to meet here once again at Avrillé to participate together in this ceremony of Tonsure and Minor Orders, which are ascending steps for the continuation of the Catholic Priesthood according to the Traditional Roman Rite of Ordination, as Archbishop Lefebvre has transmitted to us the Deposit of the Faith so that we should continue to do likewise for future generations.

Dear Seminarians and Dominican Brothers, God willing, you might be future priests; and you, dear faithful, should pray for religious vocations to come out from your young families. Therefore, let’s summarize, as it seems to me, in two points these words “for future generations.”

1) The preservation of the Catholic Priesthood

2) The Royalty of Our Lord Jesus Christ professed by Episcopal Ministry

+

1) The Catholic Priesthood

As Archbishop Lefebvre constantly insisted, the raison d’être for a Catholic priest is the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the continuation of His Cross on Calvary through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The priest must necessarily live the precepts of the Gospel, namely, poverty-obedience-chastity through prayer and abnegation, in order to preserve his raison d’être. If a priest neglects the Cross of Jesus Christ, he is certainly losing the essential element for the eternal salvation of his soul and of many others.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass should certainly keep up that grace which we have received at our baptism. When our godparents have said we renounce Satan, his works and allurements, the priest has also said to us “serva mandata; Keep the Commandments of God.” Then he put the white veil on our head, and in giving out a candle to us through the intermediary of our godparents he has said – “Keep intact the purity of your soul as this linen with which you are covered, and then you shall have eternal life.” We must therefore fulfill our baptismal promises so that we could enter in the Kingdom of heaven.

For those who have entered in religious life, they have pronounced their religious vows, engaging in a solemn way themselves even more than any faithful, devoting themselves not only to almighty God but also the whole Church. That’s why pronouncing their vows of religion, they have engaged themselves in a public and official way, acknowledged by the Church, practicing the vows of poverty, obedience and chastity. This is the raison d’être for a religious – he has made his profession to tend to perfection, and to strive for holiness.

And you, who are going to be tonsured – my dear Levites, as Archbishop Lefebvre used to called us – you are going to receive the cassock and the tonsure; but these two things are very distinct: One can receive the religious habit, yet without receiving Tonsure.

One enters into the clergy by the tonsure; this is the Tradition in the Catholic Church. In receiving the tonsure, there is already a promise to go to the Altar – to ascend to the altar. A Tonsured can be promoted by his superiors to receive Minor Orders, and in preparation to receive the Major Orders: a Sub-Deacon commits himself to his vow of chastity forever; a deacon approach closer to the altar by preaching, baptizing and giving holy communion; and then comes the priesthood – a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

As Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, there are two signs which determine someone’s vocation, this is to say – the inclination of the person who wants to pursue a religious vocation, and the acceptation or calling from the bishop to receive step-by-step the holy Orders. As a matter of fact, many people are willing to follow their vocation but very few of them are promoted by the calling of the bishop.

To those who are receiving Minor Orders, the Bishop is about to warn you saying: “You must give example by your life; you must sanctify the faithful by the example of your life, not only by words, not only by performing your functions, but also by the example of your life.”

In fact, in every admonition he gives to the Order of Lector or Porter, as well as to the Order of Exorcist or Acolyte; the bishop reminds the exigency to engage oneself in following Our Lord Jesus Christ in order to perform the most important act, which Our Lord did – His sacrifice.

Doubtless to say that throughout the history of the church, all the disasters and misfortunes have come in general from the lukewarm clerics and religious. Why?

For clerics have befallen into sins of the flesh, or have chosen some comfort in sharing the world, or have indulged some Satan’s pride alike. Many of them have abandoned the royal way of the Holy Cross, which is scandal for the Jews and foolishness for the pagans…. Unfortunately, there are many religious souls practicing a double standard in life, in one hand a worldly private life and on the other a public tepid life.

What to do about that? The Archbishop reminds us once again that…

“…This is not a human battle. We are in close fight with Satan. It is a struggle that demands all the supernatural forces which we need, in order to fight against him who wants to radically destroy the Church; he wanted to do so since Our Lord has born; and he wants to continue on abolishing and destroying the Mystical Body, wiping out His reign and all His institutions whatever they may be.

We have to be conscious of this dramatic, apocalyptic struggle in which we live, and not minimize it. To the extent of, if we minimize it, our eagerness in the battle grows less. We then become weaker and dare no more to proclaim the Truth….” (Archbishop June 29, 1987)

+

2) The Royalty of Our Lord Jesus Christ professed by Episcopal ministry.

We have received the means to instruct formally with Catholic doctrine the future priests, in order to administer to them, the Sacrament of the Holy Orders according to Traditional Roman Rite. You well know that there can be no priest without a bishop. Thus, bishops by divine institution are shepherds of souls, directed for their eternal salvation through the means of the Sacred Magisterium, and of the legislative and judicial power. They are responsible to Christ for their divine commission. At their Episcopal consecration, the power of Order endows them in particular to sanctify souls by the administration of the sacrament of Confirmation and of the Holy Orders.

Indeed, Archbishop Lefebvre by consecrating bishops has formally continued the constitution of the Catholic Church in order to keep Tradition alive. In providing the Episcopal ministry descending in direct line from the Apostolic succession without doubt, the marks of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church are being preserve through today’s crisis of the Faith and of the world.

More than ever, there is a major conflict between Faith and authority. The normal and ordinary situation of the Catholic Church certainly is that the pope, bishops and priests must lead an orientation according to the Catholic tenets of our Faith, which have divinely revealed to us and are exteriorly commissioned to the hierarchy, or at least they should not contradict them. At the contrary, we are in the deepest of an extraordinary crisis within the Church. It is evident for us that the New Evangelization of today’s Pope, coming as consequence of the Vatican II reforms, is diametrical opposed to the Catholic Magisterium of all time; it is a “New Gospel,” which Saint Paul has warned us to let it be an ANATHEMA!

In fact, last few years papal interventions, which are leading the dramatic crisis to desecrate the Catholic Faith, such interventions have rejected the Royalty of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, the Roman authorities have proclaimed Liberalism as the ruling principle of Religious Liberty in individual consciences and in public laws of institutions and Governments. The Vatican II document on Religious Liberty declares that no Government of any Country is competent in religious matter; therefore they cannot decide what religion is true, or what religion is false. State Laws must consequently let all religious errors – whatever they are – be spread out in their autonomous social domain, because Man is free to have his own Religion, with his own moral decisions and own ways of worship, including those ones done against nature.

For Tradition, Jesus Christ is true God and true Man, as well as a true King in all domains – yesterday, today and forever. Pontius Pilate asked to him, then are you a King? Yes, yourself have said: I am a King, for that I have born. I have come to the world in order to give testimony of the Truth…

So, instead of preaching about the Royalty of our Lord Jesus Christ the modern Roman authorities have constantly uncrowned and humiliated our King of Kings and our Lord of Lords. In the same token a large number of Traditional priests, including bishops, have been compromising the Universal Kingship of Our Lord by progressive public omission and by silent commission. It is precisely what Liberalism has silently engaged in the SSPX leadership in working for an agreement with today’s Roman authorities, promoters of Pope Francis New Evangelization. Here is a mystery of iniquity!

That’s why we should remind ourselves these words of the Archbishop Lefebvre:

“It is for this reason that, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of the formation of priests under the star of all times Magisterium, in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to future generations….”

With integrity and fidelity to the Traditional doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church, we resist the “novelties” preached since the Second Vatican Council, those novelties were wanted, both encouraged and imposed by the highest Roman authorities. Even though, we believe against any human appearance, and hope against any human hope, that Tradition must restore all things in Christ, and rather sooner than later, today’s chaos will go away, because the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

There is no question for us of separating ourselves from Rome, either of putting ourselves under any foreign government, or of establishing a sort of parallel church as the Bishops of Palmar of Troya [Bp. Din-Thuc consecrations line] have done in Spain. They have even elected a pope, have formed a college of cardinals… It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us to be this miserable thought of separating ourselves from Rome! (Archbishop June 30, 1988)

God alone knows how far this apostasy can go. Indeed, we have some duties of state to keep up, as Our Lady of Fatima told us to do, if we want to remain Catholic and if we want to continue the Church. Within the Episcopal ministry, we have serious obligations urging us, primarily, to multiply the priests who believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His royalty, and in His Social Kingship according to the doctrine of the Church.

After thirty years of the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations, we really appreciate Archbishop Lefebvre’s operation survival in keeping the mark of Apostolicity in the Holy Catholic Church, conferring Episcopal consecrations with legitimate validity for the continuation of the Apostolic Traditions.

Let’s us renew our consecration to the Mother of God, as Saint Cyril of Alexandria called her Theotokos, preaching that all Our Lady’s privileges derive from her Maternity. She can only have perfect faith in the divinity of her Divine Son. And we should ask from Our Lord such faith that she had in Her King and our King, in Her Lord and Our Lord. Therefore, we should believe the incredible so that we could do even the impossible – in restoring all things in Christ.

Picture 2

Viva Cristo Rey!

Is it not a duty to seek official recognition from the Pope?

admin The Fight for the Faith ,

Is it not a duty to seek official recognition from the Pope?

By Maubert

published in Le Sel de la Terre 102

1. Reasons for a Positive Response

Yes, it seems that it is a duty to seek official recognition by the pope.

* First reason

Indeed, if the Roman authorities, and especially the pope himself, call us to join our efforts to re-christianize society, we cannot do anything but rejoice in it, while ensuring that we remain as we are.  Or, with good reason, the pope sees in the SSPX a force that can have a part in the new evangelization demanded from all corners.  He appreciates that we are moving towards the “existential peripheries,” that is to say, that we help souls wherever they are, which goes in the direction of his program.  Finally, he sees that everything falls apart, while we on the contrary represent a living force for the Church.  Do we have the right, therefore, to refuse a recognition and to keep for ourselves all these treasures?

* Second reason

Among the conservatives, we have sympathizers – even some cardinals – some of whom need our help.  This could counterbalance the influence of the progressives.

* Third reason

Any abnormal situation leads in itself to normalization. It is in the very nature of things.  We must go in this direction and look to restore us to a normal situation.

* Fourth reason

In the coming years, we will urgently need new bishops.  It is certainly possible to consecrate without a pontifical mandate, in case of emergency, but if it is possible to consecrate bishops with Rome, this permission must be sought.

* Fifth reason

It is not through ecumenism that the Pope comes to us, but as Catholics.  He tells to whoever wants to hear that we are Catholics.  Moreover, the discussions that we have with our Roman counterparts or with those mandated by the Holy See, are discussions between Catholics.  What’s more normal than being officially recognized as Catholics?

* Sixth reason

Our canonical recognition would cause a healthy disturbance within the Church: the good would be encouraged, the malicious would suffer a defeat.

* Seventh reason

Moreover, with reason, our enemies (the modernists and others) oppose it: this is a sign that it would be a good thing.

* Eighth reason

St. Pius X himself shows us the example.  Indeed, the anti-clerical forces, taking advantage of the disunity of their opponents, had seized power in Venice.  In the following elections, Cardinal Sarto resolved to change the situation. “He laid the foundation for an honorable alliance,” says his biographer (Fr Dal Gal), “between the members most representative of the Catholic party and those of a moderate party, an alliance contracted under the sign of the most ample trust.”  There was total victory.  Thus, the popes of the late 19th and early 20th century gave the example of appeasement with secular countries to reinvigorate an influence of the Church.  And on this road of pragmatism, with his back to isolation, one of the pioneers is St. Pius X, as famous for his reforms as for his attachment to principles.

Likewise in the crisis of the Church: after the Council, it was important to distance oneself, as Archbishop Lefebvre did, to show our disapproval of certain novelties.  Now the danger is isolationism.  It is necessary to reach a peace with the moderates, to reinvigorate in the Church the principles of Tradition, and that happens necessarily with a canonical solution.

* Ninth reason

Archbishop Lefebvre, moreover, has always sought a canonical solution for the SSPX.  He continued his efforts even after the consecrations, although, in his realism he had little hope of success.

* Tenth reason

Today, we are not the only ones to criticize the excesses.  At Rome itself, voices are heard.  This freedom that is left to them is the guarantee of the one left to us, after the canonical recognition.

2. Opinions on the other side

Against the preceding reasons, let us note what follows:

* On July 14, 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre said to Cardinal Ratzinger:

“Eminence, see, even if you grant us a bishop, even if you give us a certain autonomy relative to the bishops, even if you grant us all of the liturgy of 1962, if you grant us to continue the seminaries and the Society, as we are doing now, we will not be able to not collaborate, it is impossible, impossible, because we work in two diametrically opposed directions: you, you are working on the dechristianization of society, of the human person and of the Church ; yet us, we work for their christianization. We can not get along.” (Le Sel de la Terre 31, p. 194).

* In December 1988, he said again:

“When we are asked when there will be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: when Rome shall recognize our Lord Jesus Christ.  We cannot agree with those who dethrone Our Lord.  The day when they will recognize again Our Lord, King of all peoples and nations, it is not we who will have joined them, but the Catholic Church in which we remain.” (Fideliter 68, p.16).

* Finally, in his Spiritual Journey, which is like his testament, he writes:

“As long as this Secretariat [for Promoting Christian Unity] will keep false ecumenism as their orientation, and as long as the Roman and ecclesiastical authorities approve of it, we can say that they will remain in an open and official rupture from all of the past of the Church.  It is therefore a strict duty for priests wanting to remain Catholic to separate from this conciliar Church, as long as it does not find the Tradition of the Magisterium and the Catholic faith.”

3. Answers to the objections

— To the first objection: the pope calls us to the new evangelization

The pope, being the authority, is the efficient cause for this society which is the Church.  If he calls us, we must carefully examine whichever final cause he intends to lead us to.  What is this “new evangelization”?  Does this term mean the same thing for him and for us?  Is Francis looking for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? (We have seen otherwise).  If it’s not the case, we cannot answer his call; that would be to endorse his program, falsely suggesting that we agree on the terms.  Now, as we have seen, since the Council, the men of the Church lead to an end quite opposed to that set in place by Our Lord.

As for the “existential peripheries”, he is not afraid to look into divorced remarriages, homosexuals, etc., with a complacent look on their moral disorders.  Is this what this term also means for us?

— To the second objection: with the conservatives, we could act as a counterbalance

More than ever, we must help these sympathizers.  But is canonical recognition the right way?  In fact, what they need to do is open their eyes to the errors of the Council.  At this time, they do not see its errors.  Indeed, according to them, the thing that we lack is canonical recognition: said another way, they have not understood that the problem is not with us, but with them.

Our real way of helping them is to provide them with all the materials that will enable them to understand the crisis we are experiencing, and to pray for the Holy Ghost to enlighten them. This is what some priests did about Bishop Lazo, bishop emeritus of San Fernando de la Union in the Philippines.  What a magnificent conversion they obtained!  It was not only signs of sympathy they got on part of the prelate, but also he became a confessor of the faith.  “Why did you become a traditionalist?” they asked him.  “Well, here [is why],” he answered, “it’s because I rejected the new Mass!” (Le Sel de la terre 21, p.163).  But it is not only the Mass; the fight for the faith is even more important.  In 1998, he sent to John Paul II a Declaration of Faith, in which he denounced conciliar errors.  “I am for Catholic Rome,” he said, “the Rome of Saints Peter and Paul. […] I am not for Rome controlled by freemasons who are the agents of Lucifer, the prince of demons.” (Le Sel de la terre 26, p.166; extended text on pp. 162-167).  And he himself became an apostle to other bishops, sending them documents.  “I have given this you as I think it is up to this level of ideas in which we must engage in this battle.” (Le Sel de la terre 21, p. 167, see his autobiography in issue 34, pp. 89-112)

— To the third objection: any abnormal situation leads to normalization

The expression is ambiguous.  It can mean that any abnormal situation must be made normal again.  For example, after the Eastern schism, the Church has made every effort, for centuries, to bring the dissidents back to the fold.

However, the obvious meaning seems to be that, ineluctably, things must move in the right direction.  Now, our poor human nature, delivered to itself, can only roll from abyss to abyss, if no one comes to help her.  To use the example of schismatics, despite the numerous efforts of the popes, very few of them have returned to the Church for a thousand years.

In addition, the expression used implies that we are in an abnormal situation.  What is actually abnormal is that the authorities spread modernism.  To make a comparison, if a father forces his children to steal, under the threat of grave punishment, they are bound to disobey him and resist him; certainly it is abnormal that children resist their father; but the first disorder is indeed that of the father; and if it becomes untenable and dangerous for their virtue, it is prudent for them to get away from him.  As this disorder remains, the children are forced to resist, or to stand aside.  It would be incomprehensible for the children to resume normal relations with their father, because they know that he is obstinate in his vice.

In our case, we keep our distance from modernist Rome for the reasons mentioned above, and for others we will see in the following articles.  As these reasons remain, we are obliged to stay in the situation we find ourselves in and to be qualified “abnormal” by the objector.

— To the fourth objection: the urgent need for new bishops

One must distinguish the two questions: the canonical solution and the consecration of a bishop.  Each is resolved by its own principles.  (Note that, in 1987-88, the occurrence of these two problems confused the matter.  All was clearer in 1991, for the consecration of Bishop Rangel, where only the question of the consecration was in play.)

For the first (the canonical solution), we will number the principles in the next issue.  As for the second (the consecration of a bishop), it is resolved by the principle of the state of necessity.  Let’s hear how Archbishop Lefebvre spoke about it shortly before his death.

In 1990, having learned that the health of Archbishop de Castro Mayer was declining, Archbishop Lefebvre sent him a letter proposing to him the consecration of a successor in the episcopate.  “Why consider such a succession,” he asked, “outside the usual canonical norms?”

1) “Because the priests and faithful have a strict right to have pastors who profess in their integrity the Catholic faith, essential for the salvation of their souls, and priests who are true Catholic pastors.

2) “Because the conciliar Church is now universally spreading errors contrary to the Catholic faith and, because of these mistakes, has corrupted the sources of grace that are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments. This false church is in ever deepening rupture with the Catholic Church.  The absolute necessity of continuing the Catholic episcopate to continue the Catholic Church results from these principles and facts. […].

That is my opinion; I think it’s based on the fundamental laws of ecclesiastical law and on Tradition.” (Fideliter 82, pp. 13-14).

It can be added that Archbishop Lefebvre had made contact with the Roman authorities for all the steps of the episcopal consecrations for the Society before 1988.  He had concluded that “recourse to Rome, always physically possible, is rendered morally impossible by the spirit which has penetrated the Holy Father: communion with false religions, the spirit of adultery which is [alive and] breathing in the Church; this spirit is not Catholic.  For twenty years, we have strived with patience and firmness to make the Roman authorities understand this need for a return to sound doctrine and tradition for the renewal of the Church, the salvation of souls and glory of God.  But they remain deaf to our pleas, and furthermore they ask us to recognize the legitimacy of the whole Council and the reforms which ruin the Church.” (Quoted in Mgr. Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre, a life, Clovis, Étampes, 2002, p. 570).

If, therefore, the need for episcopal consecrations is felt, it suffices to retake these principles and apply them: the faithful always have the right to true doctrine and the true sacraments; the conciliar Church is still in rupture – even more than in 1990 – with the Catholic Church; finally, the Holy See does not seem to have questioned the legitimacy of the Council and cannot stand being attacked on this question.  By this we can easily see “if it is possible to consecrate bishops with the permission from Rome.”  As for knowing when to consecrate bishops, this falls within the “royal prudence,” that of the leader.  It is up to him to apply the principles to the reality of the moment.

— To the fifth objection: it is not ecumenism

Truly, relations between the Holy See and those faithful to Tradition is not ecumenism.  Indeed, ecumenism is the search for a certain union between Christians (Catholics and non-Catholics) without conversions.  But here, both sides are Catholic, so it is not ecumenism.

However, the principle that is at the root of ecumenism is pluralism: indeed, in ecumenical relations, everyone respects the convictions of the other, accepting them as valid.

However, this is the same principle that the Holy See wants to impose for their relations between us.  Hence, it does not suffice to say that it is not through ecumenism that the pope comes to us – which is true – yet it should not be in a pluralist perspective, which is not the case.

— To the sixth objection: the healthy disorder which will lead to our recognition within the Church

Everything that is of traditional tendency gathers sympathizers and opponents (some more or less virulent).  For example, some show their discontent with the founding of the Good Shepherd Institute, saying that “these people should have stayed out“; others showed their support, seeing it as a step towards “reconciliation“.  In the same way, the Franciscans of the Immaculate were appreciated by many and hated by others.  Yet it does not suffice to say that Institute of the Good Shepherd was right and that the doctrinal position of the Franciscans is irreproachable.  It is not on the reaction of others that we must judge an act, but on its intimate nature.  We examine the moral nature of a canonical recognition with the neo-modernist authorities.  That’s enough to judge its merits.

— To the seventh objection: our enemies oppose this recognition

The reason we have just given suffices to answer the present objection.  Let us add simply that it is not enough that an effect be good to justify the act which produced it; in other words, the end does not justify the means.  It is not permitted to steal money to build a church.  Here, likewise, the good effect (besides being very limited) would proceed from a bad means: adding to conciliar pluralism.

— To the eighth objection: St. Pius X has given us the example of union with the liberals

Certainly, there was a meeting with the liberals to expel the Freemasons.  Yet, as Father Dal Gal says, let us observe, moreover, that in this alliance between Catholics and moderate liberals, it was not these who had drafted the program of common action to conduct in the election period and after the elections.  It was not the Catholics who had attenuated their principles to adhere to the moderates, but the moderates who had adhered to the program of the Catholics.  Now, in our case, it is the neo-modernists who intend for us impose their principles.

Let us note that in the case of the separation of the Church and the State, St. Pius X resisted the French government which wanted to impose the cultural associations, which would have led the Church of France to schism.  His firmness pushed back the sectarians.  It is therefore wrong to say that the pontificate of Saint Pius X is part of an inescapable logic of reconciliation and appeasement.  That is reading events in the light of the sense of history.

In addition, isolation is not an evil in itself: God had even prescribed it to the people of Israel.  If Archbishop Lefebvre distanced himself, it was to preserve his priests from modernist influences.  It is not clear why, by the mere fact that thirty years have passed, it is necessary to go through a canonical solution to reintroduce the principles of Tradition to Rome.

— To the ninth objection: Archbishop Lefebvre had always sought a canonical solution

Let us begin by pointing out that Archbishop Lefebvre had long sought a canonical solution.  But it is absolutely clear that after the consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre until his death no longer sought a canonical solution.

Yet it is not useless to say why Archbishop Lefebvre first sought a solution on the canonical level.  It is because he has long hoped and believed that the authorities were capable of sincerely desiring the good of Tradition. “I have hoped until the last minute”, he said, “that in Rome there would be a little loyalty.” ( Fideliter 79, p. 11).  This will to favor Tradition was undeniably the same as that of Bishop CharriÀre when he approved the SSPX.  But later, Archbishop Lefebvre had to realize that it was not at all that of the Roman authorities.  “They want to have us under their heels directly,” he said, “and to be able to impose on us precisely this anti-Tradition policy of which they are imbued. {…] I realized that Rome wanted to impose their ideas and ways of seeing. “( Fideliter 66, pp. 28-30).  “We quickly realized that we were dealing with people who are not honest. […]  We, we wanted recognition [the will to help Tradition], Rome wanted reconciliation (that each one make concessions) and we recognized our mistakes.” (Fideliter 70).

Cardinal Gagnon himself said to L’Avvenire of June 17, 1988:  “We have, on our side, always talked of reconciliation, Archbishop Lefebvre, on the other hand, of recognition.  The difference is not small.  Reconciliation presupposes that both parties make an effort, that past mistakes are reconciled.  Archbishop Lefebvre only hears that it is said that he has always been right, and that is impossible.”  (Quoted in La Tradition excommunique , a publication of the Courrier of Rome , Versailles, 1989, pp. 40-41).  “The desire of Rome of not helping Tradition”, said again Archbishop Lefebvre, “and of not trusting it, is evident.”  ( Fideliter 68, p. 9 – see pages 4 and 7).  Finally, he writes to John Paul II that “the moment of frank and effective collaboration had not yet arrived because the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same for the Holy See as it is for us “. ( Le Sel de la terre 25, p 153).

Also, for him, there is no question of entering the pluralist system: “For them, all this [Catholic doctrine] evolves and has evolved with Vatican II.  The latest term of evolution, that is from Vatican II.  That’s why we can not bond with Rome.”  ( Fideliter 66, 30).  “We should not be surprised that we cannot arrive to an understanding with Rome.  This will not be possible as long as Rome does not return to faith in the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, and as long as she gives the impression that all religions are good.”  ( L’Eglise infiltr»e par le modernisme [ The Church Infiltrated by Modernism ], p. 71).

— To the tenth objection: the freedom of conservative prelates is the guarantee of our freedom

As we have seen, none of the conservative prelates questions the Council and its principles.  Only if we accept, in one way or another, these principles, will Rome tolerate criticism on our part, which is obviously unacceptable.

Translation by J.F

.

APPEAL TO THE FAITHFUL (co-signed by [then] Father Thomas Aquinas with 40 priests and religious in 2014)

admin conciliar Church, The Fight for the Faith , ,

**APPEAL TO THE FAITHFUL**  

(co-signed by [then] Father Thomas Aquinas with 40 priests and religious in 2014)

Faithful to the heritage of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre and in particular to his memorable Declaration of the 21st November 1974, “we adhere with all our heart, with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic faith and the necessary conditions to maintain this faith, to eternal Rome mistress of wisdom and truth.”

According to the example of this great prelate, intrepid defender of the of the Church and the Apostolic See, “we refuse on the contrary and have always refused to follow neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant Rome which clearly manifested itself at the Second Vatican Council and after the council, in all the reforms and orientations which followed it.”

Since the year 2000 and in particular from 2012 the authorities of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X have taken the opposite direction of aligning themselves with modernist Rome.

The Doctrinal Declaration of the 15th April 2012, followed by the exclusion of a bishop and numerous priests and confirmed by the condemnation of the book, “Monseigneur Lefebvre, Our Relations with Rome”, all that shows the pertinacity in this direction which leads to death.

“No authority, even the highest in the hierarchy, can make us abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith clearly expressed by the Magisterium of the Church for twenty centuries.”

Under the protection of Our Lady Guardian of the Faith, we intend to follow operation survival begun by Abp. Lefebvre.

In consequence, in these tragic circumstances in which we find ourselves, we put our priesthood at the disposal of all those who want to remain faithful in the combat for the Faith.

This is why from now on, we are committed to respond to the demands which will be made on us, to sustain your families in their educational duties, to offer the priestly formation to young men who desire it, to safeguard the Mass, the sacraments and the doctrinal formation, everywhere we are required to do so.

As for you, we exhort you to be zealous apostles for the reign of Christ the King and Mary our Queen.

Long Live Christ our King!

Our Lady Guardian of the Faith, protect us!

Saint Pius X, pray for us!

The 7th January 2014

Presentation of Bishop Dom Thomas Aquinas O.S.B. (Part 1)

admin conciliar Church, The Fight for the Faith , , ,

Presentation of Bishop Dom Thomas Aquinas O.S.B.  (Part 1)

image

Miguel Ferreira da Costa (the future Father Thomas Aquinas) was born in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1954.  He subsequently lived in Volta Redonda, where his father worked in an important steel factory, until 1962, when his family came back to Rio.  After his instruction at St. Benedict’s College in Rio de Janeiro, he started his studies in law.

Around the age of 13 he attended one of the weekly conferences given voluntarily by the anti-modernist writer Gustavo Corção to a little group of faithful, desiring to better know the treasures of the Catholic faith:

“I came back during 7 years, encouraged by my mother who barely missed any of these conferences.  My father always attended them when his work allowed him to.  It’s in that occasion that I had the chance to know Mr. Julio Fleichman and his wife, etc.1.” 

The young Miguel Ferreira da Costa went to see Gustavo Corção in 1972, to open his heart about his vocation and to ask him to which seminary he should go.  At this time, Gustavo Corção did not yet know Archbishop Lefebvre:

«”Tell you where to go?”, answered Gustavo Corção, “I can’t.  What I can tell you is where not to go.  You’ll have a hard time finding where they don’t teach fooly things […]”   It’s then that Mrs Pierotti, Corção’s secretary, spoke to me about Archbishop Lefebvre and Ecône: «If you were my son, that’s where I would send you».

Miguel Ferreira da Costa wrote to Archbishop Lefebvre who addressed him to the seminary of Bishop de Castro Mayer in Campos, a city in the State of Rio de Janeiro.  He went there, but he was discouraged by the influence of the TFP movement (“Tradition, Family, Property”) in the seminary.  Then, he heard about the priory that Dom Gérard founded in Bédoin, Provence (France), at the foot of Mount Ventoux.  Gustavo Corção told him: «Go there. If it’s not good, come back.»

“Without realizing it, he had made a prophecy, because that’s how this adventure was going to finish, through ways ordained “mightly and softly” by Divine Providence.  In the meantime, Dom Gérard wrote that he accepted me.  From Ecône arrived a letter too. The director of the seminary, the canon Berthod, opened his doors too.  To make a long story short, I went to Dom Gérard, which was not the best choice.”

Miguel Ferreira da Costa arrived in France in May 1974, in the little Provencal monastery of Bédoin, where Dom Gérard Calvet was following the traditional Benedictine monastic life since 1971.  On October 2, he received the religious habit along with the religious name of Thomas Aquinas, and started his novitiate.  On the occasion of his vows in 1976, Gustavo Corção came to the monastery to attend to the ceremony.  At that time Dom Gérard and the monks were united in heart and thought with Archbishop Lefebvre who gave the Holy Orders to the monks of the monastery.  In 1980, after his ordination in Ecône, Father Thomas Aquinas and the monks moved to the Barroux, leaving with sorrow, Bédoin, which had become too small.

Despite the enthusiasm which reigned at the monastery, Father Thomas Aquinas perceived a lack of philosophical and theological formation of the monks:

“There was already something very disturbing which explains, in my opinion, the drift which our community would have come to know some years later. […]  The formation given in Bédoin, when I arrived and until my ordination, was pretty informal.  Dom Gérard, it’s true, invited a few devoted and learned religious who came to give us some courses.

[…] But these conferences and even these courses didn’t form a structured whole, capable of giving us a true and solid formation. The courses, anyway, weren’t given in the correct order and, for the most part, they remained unfinished.  Dom Gérard then improvised the role of professor to teach us some treatises […] but in a too summarized way, sadly. He also asked the monks to give each other some of the courses when we weren’t yet capable enough to do so.  There were too few classes per week and the exams were very rare.  And so, many subjects were more or less unknown or misunderstood by the first generation of Bédoin. […]

Dom Gérard’s way of going about things was more artistic than realistic.  According to him, St. Thomas had his system.  Other people had others.  This left a doubt on the true value of a purely scholastic formation and of its real necessity, as St. Pius X presents it in the encyclical Pascendi, and in the Code of Canon Law. […] As a result, all we knew about the scholastic method was its name; and for the Summa Theologica, we learned the conclusions without understanding the argumentation.  We contemplated from the outside the Church’s beautiful doctrinal edifice without truly penetrating in the interior, and if at times we entered a bit it was as lay men and not as professionals.  One may say that the role of monks is not to become theologians, that contemplatives don’t need a lot of knowledge in order to devote themselves to contemplation.  That could be true in some cases but, if we were destined to the priesthood, if we were monks and priests, if among us some were destined one day to teach, then, it can hardly be conceived not to be formed in the method of St. Thomas, according to the directives of the Holy See, most especially in the actual crisis. […]

Without falling into the excess of saying that in Bédoin and Barroux we were modernists, it’s certain that we didn’t have in Dom Gérard the same purity, vigilance and doctrinal assurance of Archbishop Lefebvre.  If we weren’t modernists, the environment which reigned there didn’t protect us enough against their doctrines nor against a certain liberalism.”

It’s in 1975 that Father Thomas Aquinas saw for the first time Archbishop Lefebvre, who came to Bédoin to give the minor orders to the brothers Jean de Belleville and Joseph Vannier:

“The homily of Archbishop Lefebvre impressed me by its serenity. It radiated peace, that peace which is the motto of the Benedictines, and which he seemed to have more than us all.”

Father Thomas Aquinas attended at the ordinations in Ecône in 1976, which were a prelude to the «hot summer».  However, it wasn’t until the year of study and rest which he passed at the seminary St. Pius X in Ecône in 1984-1985, that he had a personal contact with Archbishop Lefebvre:

“Taking advantage of the presence of Archbishop Lefebvre, I could see him often.  His paternal goodness made his conversations easy. […]  On March 12, 1985, Archbishop Lefebvre spoke to me about the question of an agreement with Rome.

I think Archbishop Lefebvre broached this topic because of Dom Gérard who, at that time, […] was trying to obtain the support of Archbishop Lefebvre for what he wanted to do.”

Thanks to the notes that he had the habit of writing up after each meeting, Father Thomas Aquinas reveals to us some enlightening words of Archbishop Lefebvre:

“Be subject to men who have not the fullness of the Catholic faith?  Submit to men who proclaim principles contrary to the principles of the Church?  Either we will be obliged to break with them once more and the situation will become worse than before or we will be lead imperceptibly to the lessening and to the loss of the faith.  There is also a third possibility.  A very difficult life because of frequent contact with men who do not have the Catholic faith, leading to the disorientation and to the decrease of the spirit of combat of the faithful.(..)  Our position, such as it is now, allows us to remain united in the faith.  All those who have wanted to compromise with the modernists have veered off course.  I think that we must not submit to them.  I am very distrustful.  I spend whole nights thinking about that.  It is not we who must sign something.  It is they who must sign something guaranteeing that they accept the doctrine of the Church.  They want our submission but they do not give us doctrine.”

Reverend Father Thomas Aquinas also noted that as early as 1984 or 85, Dom Gérard went to Rome to negotiate for the regularization of the monastery of Le Barroux:

He went to see Cardinal Ratzinger and came back dazzled by him. ²The Cardinal, he said, is someone with whom one can work.  Archbishop Lefebvre is too withdrawn.”   And he imitated the attitude of the Archbishop as someone sulking in his corner.  “Moreover it is not necessary that it be Archbishop Lefebvre who ordains our priests.  Another bishop can do it just as well, provided that it is with the old rite”.  We had cold shivers down our backs when we heard all that. (…)  At the end of 1986, I set off for Brazil with Father Joseph Vannier to look at a plot of land with a view to a new foundation.  I was rather relieved to be leaving Le Barroux where the atmosphere was becoming more and more oppressive.  You could feel that the monastery was on a slippery slope.

On May 3rd, 1987 the monastery of Santa Cruz was officially founded and Father Thomas Aquinas became the prior.  The monastery is situated near Nova Friburgo, a town situated in the north-central part of the State of Rio de Janeiro.  Relations between the new foundation and Le Barroux deteriorated rapidly as Dom Thomas Aquinas recounts:

“Next came the years of the foundation of Santa Cruz, during which time Archbishop Lefebvre helped us with his precious counsel.  My conscience was very disturbed because of the liturgical modifications introduced into the Mass by Dom Gérard.[…]  So I wrote to Archbishop Lefebvre who, although not approving Dom Gérard, advised me to maintain good relations with the monastery of Le Barroux in France.  But these good relations with our monastery in France were not going to last long.  Dom Gérard, after the consecrations, was to make an agreement which was going to put our monasteries under the authority of the modernists.”

Here is the judgment of Father Thomas Aquinas on Le Barroux and its founder:

“In this way Dom Gérard destroyed his work.  This work, despite its deficiencies, was for all that a beautiful work .  The offices were said there with much care, the monastic virtues were held in honour there and we had very good vocations which came to us from families who were truly Catholic and traditional.  Dom Gérard had wanted to form a traditional monastery but he lacked an in-depth understanding of the present crisis. Dom Gérard saw the necessity of keeping the Mass of all-time; of keeping the monastic observances but he did not see with sufficient clarity the dangers of modernism and liberalism.  The most profound aspect of the present crisis eluded him.  All that allows us to measure more accurately the value of Archbishop Lefebvre and his work.  It is the Archbishop who saw correctly, it is he who discerned the evil, it is he who understood all the gravity of the situation.  The Archbishop had a vision of faith, a vision which was theological in the most precise sense of the word.  This was lacking in Dom Gérard who, like Jean Madiran, saw the defection of the diocesan bishops rather than that of the conciliar Popes, alas.[…]  When the news of the agreements reached us, we were already expecting it.  At first we thought of leaving Santa Cruz and leaving everything for Dom Gérard and those who wanted to follow him2.

A letter from Archbishop Lefebvre made us change our minds and we kept Santa Cruz in the bosom of Tradition.  […]  Dom Gérard, when he came to Brazil, had to leave again without obtaining what he was hoping for.  After these painful events we had no more contact with him.  On the other hand Archbishop Lefebvre became more and more what he is for all faithful Catholics, i.e. the faithful successor of the apostles who gave us the doctrine and the sacraments of Our Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of our souls.  To him we owe our eternal gratitude.

August 18, 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre wrote a letter to Father Thomas Aquinas in which he said:

“ How much I regretted that you had left before the events at Le Barroux3.  It would have been easier to consider the situation provoked by Dom Gérard’s disastrous decision. […]  Dom Gérard, in his declaration, reports what is given to him and accepts putting himself under obedience to modernist Rome, which remains fundamentally anti-traditional, which was the cause of my estrangement.  At the same time he would like to keep the friendship and support of traditionalists, which is inconceivable.  He accuses us of “ resistance-ism”.  Yet I warned him. But his decision was taken a long time ago and he no longer wanted to listen to reason.  From now on the consequences are inescapable.  We will have no further links with Le Barroux and we will warn all our faithful to no longer support a work which is now in the hands of our enemies, the enemies of Our Lord and His universal Reign.

The Benedictine sisters are in anguish.  They came to see me.  I advised them what I advise you also: keep your liberty and refuse all links with this modernist Rome.  Dom Gérard uses all the arguments to lull the resisters. […]  You should have a meeting with Fathers Laurent and the Argentinian Father John of the Cross as well as with the novices.  With the three of you and the novices of Campos you can continue and constitute a monastery independent of Rome.  You must not hesitate to affirm this publicly.  God will bless you.  And you could then, after some time, set up a monastery again in France, you would be very well supported and would have vocations.  Dom Gérard has killed his own work.  Father Tam will tell you in person what I have not written.  I beg Our Lady to come to your aid in defence of the honour of her divine Son.  May God bless you and your monastery.”

(To be continued)

Should we participate in the Jubilee of Mercy?

admin conciliar Church, The Fight for the Faith , , , ,

Should we participate in the Jubilee of Mercy ?

 

A.   It would appear that we should participate in the extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy:

1.  When the gates of mercy are made wide open, we must take advantage to receive it in abundance.   A Holy Year is a great grace for all the members of the Church.

2.  The Council of Trent “teaches and demands that the use of indulgences, which are greatly beneficial to Christian people and are approved by the authority of this saintly council, be maintained” (DS 1835); the code of Canon Law states: “All will give great importance to the said indulgences” (can 911).  It would be paradoxical to decide, just because we do not want to have anything to do with the failed council that was Vatican II, to dismiss a truth that was proclaimed by the Council of Trent, and encouraged by all that is Church tradition.

3.  According to St. Alphonse de Liguori: “To become a saint, it suffices to gain as many indulgences as possible”.

4.  Nobody risks his salvation by participating in the Jubilee of Mercy, unless one questions the power of the keys which are legitimately held by Francis.

5.  “Even though the remission of sins were to be done in a questionable way, the interested party would nonetheless gain the full indulgence” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Suppl. Q.25 to 2, ad 1).

6.  For a circumstance to impact the Jubilee and denature it, it would have to become either the object of, or the specific goal of the Jubilee.  However, the conditions required to obtain the said indulgence are the traditional ones: visit to a Jubilee church, confession, communion, recitation of the Credo, and prayers for the intentions of the Sovereign Pontiff (such as the Our Father, or the prayer of the Jubilee).

7.   The joy of the Jubilee is not that one of rejoicing in the Vatican II council, but rather in the grace bestowed by the head of the Church who draws it from the treasure of the infinite merits of Christ and of all the saints.  The grace bestowed so abundantly will always be a reason to rejoice for those who are well disposed to receive it.

8.   Archbishop Lefebvre and the Ecône Seminary went to the great pilgrimage organized by Rome during the Holy Year of 1975.  So did the Society of Saint Pius X in 2000.  Yet in 1975 the Vatican had noted that the holy year “coincided with the tenth anniversary of the closing of the second ecumenical Council of the Vatican”, and the decree of the holy year 2000 noted that on the occasion of the entry to the new millennium, “one should return with a renewed fidelity to the teachings the Vatican II council”.

B. Counter arguments

This Jubilee is organized by the conciliar Church; now Archbishop Lefebvre wrote in his spiritual “testament” (Spiritual Itinerary with Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, 1990):

“It is the strict duty of any priest wanting to remain catholic to separate himself from this conciliar Church, until the time it finds again the tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic Faith (…).”

C. Answer:

The morality of a human act is measured not only by its end, but also by the circumstances surrounding it (Summa Theologica-II q.18 a.3).  For example, carrying a pickax while going to one’s own field does not have the same moral sense as carrying the same pickax to a demonstration in front of Town Hall.

The Jubilee of the Year of Mercy is tainted by the following circumstances:

  • the date of the Jubilee has been chosen to celebrate the 50 years of the Council and
  • the “mercy” that Pope Francis advocates is a lax mercy which leads to sin.

Participation in the Jubilee cannot do away with these circumstances and therefore this participation is immoral.

Solutions to the above objections:  [Editor:  “Ad 1”, “Ad 2” are Latin shorthand for   “Response to point 1 above”, “Response to point 2 above”, etc.]

Ad 1.   Saint Hermenegilde refused to receive communion from the hands of an Arian bishop on Easter day, and for this reason he was put to death.  And yet there is nothing more sanctifying than Holy Communion, and Easter communion is obligatory under pain of mortal sin.  But in this case the circumstances made the act sinful: to receive the host from the hands of a heretic priest was a “communio in sacris” with a heretic.

Ad 2.   The objector is wrong in qualifying Vatican II as a “failed council”.  It is, on the contrary, a great success for the modernists who were able on this occasion to found their “Conciliar Church”.  To participate in this Jubilee would be to compromise with this pseudo-church as per the circumstances afore mentioned.  As for the indulgences, one can gain them in other ways than participating in the Jubilee: there are several ways to gain a plenary indulgence every day, for example by a half-hour of reading Holy Scripture or adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the recitation of the Rosary, the stations of the cross, etc.

Ad 3.  The objector does not give a reference from among the works of the Saint, but from a secondary source, which itself does not give any reference.  The oldest trace that we have found of this citation is in a book written to criticize indulgences1.  We would therefore allow ourselves to ask for a precise source to verify the authenticity of this phrase as well as its context.  Whatever the case may be, to become a saint, faith is needed to a heroic degree, and therefore avoidance of all equivocations in matters of Faith.

Ad 4.  We do not question the power of the pope, but we note that he uses it badly.  It is for this same reason that we refuse the new Mass, the new code of canon law, etc.

Ad 5.  The objector omitted, without due notice, part of the quote from Saint Thomas:  “If however, the remittance of punishment is done in an unreasonable way, so that for a pittance men would be turned away from works of penance, he [the one that confers the indulgence] sins in acting in such a way; the person in question does however gain the indulgence in its entirety”.    From this, one perceives that the unreasonable aspect considered by Saint Thomas is a simple disproportion between the penance required, and the indulgence accorded.  Here the gain of the indulgence is tied to the joy of Vatican II and to a false conception of the “mercy” of pope Francis, therefore being not only unreasonable but also immoral.

Ad 6.  The objector plays on the word “denatures”.  It is true that the Jubilee remains a Jubilee, the circumstances that make it bad do not change its nature of Jubilee.  But those circumstances do enter into the object that is being morally considered for they affect its morality.  The communion offered to St. Hermenegilde remained an Easter communion, but the circumstances made it sinful.

Ad 7.  Even if he who participates in the Jubilee does not have the (subjective) intention to rejoice in Vatican II, he participates in a Jubilee that has been objectively designed to rejoice in this Council.  One must therefore abstain from participation, unless one wants to be subjectivist.

Ad 8.  The Jubilees of 1975 and 2000 were ordinary Jubilees, as those regularly held every 25 years to celebrate the anniversaries of the Incarnation.  They were not therefore tied per se to the anniversary of the Council, or to a false conception of mercy.  The allusions to the Council mentioned by the objector remained secondary and did not affect the morality of the act of participation for he who would simply celebrate the anniversary of the Incarnation.

In 1975 the participation of Archbishop Lefebvre in the pilgrimage organized by the “Credo” association took place at a time when he was manifesting his opposition to conciliar Rome2.  There was therefore no ambiguity in this act.

We can ask ourselves if it was prudent to redo a pilgrimage to Rome in 2000.   For it is on this occasion that some contacts were taken up again with the purpose of an agreement with modernistic Rome, which ended with the fall of Campos the following year.  The SSPX tried to pull back, but the talks for an agreement continued and in 2012 the accord almost happened.  The communiqués that followed the Roman meeting of September 23, 2014, the one of Menzingen (“cordial meeting”), and that of the Vatican (“proceed by successive stages” … “towards resolving the difficulties” … “in the perspective of a full reconciliation”) were the point of departure towards a certain number of steps or stages and the participation in this Jubilee would be very clearly part of this process.

Satan’s master stroke (Part 2 of 2)

admin Apologetics, conciliar Church , , , , ,

Satan’s master stroke (Part 2 of 2)

(Editorial of Le Sel de la terre 94, Autumn 2015)

(Continued)

4. Should we return to the old principle :

“No practical agreement without doctrinal agreement” ?

Today, under Pope Francis, it is no longer possible to argue for a supposed improvement in the situation in Rome, but this does not stop certain people from raising objections to a return to the “old principle”.  Here are some objections which are voiced and the responses which can be made to them:

Objection 1

Between “no practical agreement without doctrinal agreement” and “practical agreement without doctrinal agreement”, there is a middle way which is in conformity with the thought of Archbishop Lefebvre.

1st Response: The Devil fishes in troubled waters.  In a matter of such importance (since the Faith is in danger), we must be clear.

2nd Response:  The thought of Archbishop Lefebvre evolved with events.  The more Conciliar Rome showed itself to be stubborn in its adherence to Modernism, the more he took his distance.  After the failure of the negotiations, he took up a very clear position, which is the one we have explained above (i.e. in the first part of this article).  Those who today want to make a practical agreement with Rome while claiming to be faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre are obliged to suppose that Archbishop Lefebvre would have changed his mind.  It is more correct to think that Archbishop Lefebvre would, on the contrary, be even more wary of today’s Rome, because of the fact that it is even more Modernist than in 1988.

Objection 2.

But if the Pope grants us something (like the label of “Catholic Association” in Argentina, or even ordinary jurisdiction to confess validly and licitly during the Holy Year), without asking us for anything in exchange, then we are not going to refuse!  It binds us to nothing.

Response: “Timeo Daneos et dona ferentes”1, replies Virgil.  We should instead have the wisdom and prudence to at least recall that we remain separated by a wall – i.e. the wall which separates Catholic doctrine from Modernism.  Otherwise we could end up thinking that these little gifts are the proof that collaboration is possible2.

During the Communist persecutions, Catholics who wanted to resist chose rather the policy of never accepting anything from the Communists (see “Le piège des pains au jambon” by Rose Hu, in Sel de la Terre 61, Summer 2007, p. 703).

Objection 3.

By refusing to follow the Society of Saint Pius X, you are dividing Tradition, whereas it needs to be united vis-à-vis Rome, in order to be stronger.

1st Response: Our strength lies above all in the truth which we defend.  By “muting” this truth (by accepting a “practical agreement” with those who do not profess it), we lose our strength, just as Sampson lost his by allowing his hair to be cut.

2nd Response: Bishop de Galarreta had foreseen that if we continued down this path of a practical agreement, “many superiors and priests will have a legitimate problem of conscience and will oppose it4”.

3rd Response: Who causes division: the one who changes policy – without saying so clearly – or the one who does not want to change and simply explains why he does not want to change?

Objection 4.

But nothing has been signed!  So, we can keep the current situation, while waiting for a better Pope with whom we will be able to make an agreement.

Response:  Signing will be the end of the process.  But once you accept in principle to place yourself under the direct authority of Modernists, you are committing yourself to a process of rapprochement.  This is a process which is already well underway: in effect, since 2011, at least, there has been no serious condemnation of the errors and faults of Modernist Rome by the superior authority of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X.  Some underlings have been allowed to speak out, but even they less and less5.

Objection 5.

One cannot say, without further qualification, that principles – even practical ones – remain unchangeable.  As a result, you are exaggerating when you make of this principle an unchangeable rule6.

Response: It is true that prudence must take account of circumstances and that the application of the principles can vary.  Saint Thomas Aquinas (II-IIae, q. 49, a.2) shows that the practical syllogism of prudence contains a universal Major (a first proposition) and a particular Minor (a second proposition).

This Minor, which is the observation of a concrete fact, is changeable according to the circumstances.  But it is not a “principle” in the sense used here7.

The Major, however, is a principle, a general rule of action founded on human nature and therefore invariable:  it is in this sense that the word “principle” is used in the quotes of Cardinal Pie, Monseigneur Freppel, Fréderic Le Play, etc.:

Let us not hope to seize once more, by means of secret capitulations, that which Heaven itself refuses to give us.  The reign of expediency is over; the reign of principles is beginning (Cardinal Pie, First Pastoral Letter, 25 November 1849).

In a society which is everywhere collapsing, it seemed to me that the first thing to do was to straighten out ideas.  What is necessary is to concentrate on improving the fundamentals in light of the principles.  There is no other rule of reform than that of seeking what is true and confessing it, whatever may happen (Fréderic Le Play in 1865).

Let us know how to recognize that abandoning the principles is the real cause of our disasters (The Count de Chambord, 8 May 1871).

The greatest misfortune for any era or country is when truth is abandoned or diminished.  One can recover from anything else; one never recovers from sacrificing principles (Monseigneur Freppel, 19 January 1873).

It is clear that, for these distinguished minds, the principles of which they speak are not variable rules.

Conclusion: let us keep the “old principle”

Undoubtedly the principle “no canonical agreement before a doctrinal agreement” is not one of the very first principles of the Natural Law (like the Ten Commandments).  It is rather to be ranked amongst those common truths admitted by prudent people.

However, in the current circumstances, after more than 25 years’ experience of witnessing that those groups which have gone over to Conciliar Rome always end up abandoning the fight for the Faith, after observing that the situation in Rome, far from improving, is actually only worsening, it appears clearly that only the observation of this principle – left as a testament by Archbishop Lefebvre – will allow us to resist “Satan’s master stroke”.

Satan’s “master stroke” (Part 1 of 2)

admin Apologetics, conciliar Church , , , , ,

Satan’s “master stroke”  (Part 1 of 2)

(Editorial of Le Sel de la terre 94, Autumn 2015)

1.  Satan Launches his “master stroke”

We know that Pope Paul VI spoke of the auto-destruction of the Church and of the smoke of Satan which had entered the Temple of God:

“The Church finds Herself in a time of anxiety, of self-criticism, we could even say of auto-destruction. It is akin to an interior upheaval, which is both acute and complex, and which no-one would have expected after the Council.”1

“Faced with the situation in the Church today, we have the impression that through some crack or fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the Temple of God.  There are doubts, uncertainties, problems, anxiety, dissatisfaction, confrontation. The Church is no longer trusted. […] It was thought that after the Council the sun would have shone on the history of the Church.  But, instead of sun, we have had clouds, storms, darkness, searching, uncertainty. […] How was this able to happen?  An adversary power has intervened, whose name is the devil, this mysterious being to whom Saint Peter alludes in his letter.”2

Just as the High-Priest, Caiaphas, prophesied that it was necessary for Our Lord Jesus Christ to die in order to save His people3, but without understanding his prophecy, so Paul VI saw that the Church was auto-destructing via the action of Satan, but without understanding the process.

On 13 October 1974, the anniversary of the apparitions of Fatima, in a written work entitled “Satan’s Master stroke”, Archbishop Lefebvre described in a striking manner how the auto-destruction of the Church was happening.  Here are some extracts from that text:

“Satan’s master stroke will therefore be to spread the revolutionary principles introduced into the Church by the authority of the Church itself, placing this authority in a situation of incoherence and permanent contradiction; so long as this ambiguity has not been dispersed, disasters will multiply within the Church. […]  We must acknowledge that the trick has been well played and that Satan’s lie has been masterfully utilized.  The Church will destroy Herself through obedience.  […]  You must obey!  Whom or what must we obey?  We don’t know exactly.  Woe to the man who does not consent.  He thereby earns the right to be trampled under-foot, to be calumniated, to be deprived of everything which allowed him to live.  He is a heretic, a schismatic; let him die – that is all he deserves.”

“Satan has really succeeded in pulling off a master stroke: he is succeeding in having those who keep the Catholic Faith condemned by the very people who should be defending and propagating it. […]  Satan reigns through ambiguity and incoherence, which are his means of combat, and which deceive men of little Faith.  Satan’s master stroke, by which he is bringing about the auto-destruction of the Church, is therefore to use obedience in order to destroy the Faith: authority against Truth.“

2. Satan continues his “master stroke”

It is not only in the immediate aftermath of the Council that Satan used his master stroke.  He began all over again after the consecrations of 30 June 1988 in order to try to divide Tradition.  Here is how Dom Thomas Aquinas describes the scenario in the last Letter to the Friends of Santa Cruz Monastery:

“On June 30, 1988, after having prayed for a long time, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four bishops so that Holy Church could continue Her mission.  This ceremony stirred up the predicted storm.  Rome thundered excommunication (invalid because Archbishop Lefebvre’s act was licit and necessary due to the situation in which the Church finds Herself) and the newspapers published the news with great gusto.However, Rome was not the only one to disapprove of these consecrations. Some within Tradition also opposed them: Dom Gérard Calvet, Prior of the Sainte Madeleine Monastery in Le Barroux, France, Jean Madiran, director of the Itinéraires magazine, Father Bisig4, and some others.  Dom Gérard said that it was necessary to remain within the visible perimeter of the Church.  In order to accomplish this, he regularized his canonical situation with Rome, abandoning Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, bringing with him the Benedictine nuns of the Annonciation Monastery in France.  He also tried to bring with him in his opposition to the 1988 consecrations the Brazilian foundation of Santa Cruz.

And what were his arguments?  They were subtle and threatened to undermine the monks of Santa Cruz:

You must obey me”, he said, “because this decision does not concern the Faith.  It is a prudential question.  You must obey me because of your vows”.

These are not his exact words, but that was the essence of his argument.  Dom Gérard had already declared:  “Rome is giving us everything and is asking nothing from us.  How could we refuse?”  He thus employed every means to convince his monks, the faithful and friendly priests: to disobey him would be a mortal sin, a sin against our vows.

What were we to say faced with such an argument?   “Our Faith is exposed to great risks by this agreement with Rome.  We cannot accept it”.

“You must come back to France”, Dom Gérard told me.  “There are fifty monks in the monastery to protect your Faith”.

Even though Dom Gérard said there was no risk for our Faith, even though Dom Gérard said that his decision was purely prudential, the truth was completely different.  Even though this decision was prudential, it had serious consequences for the Faith.  By submitting himself to authorities who were not professing the Catholic Faith in all its integrity, Dom Gérard was placing our monasteries in a situation whose harmfulness would be demonstrated over time:  the New Mass celebrated by monks, Religious Liberty defended by Father Basile, the departure of several monks as well as a new orientation for the whole monastery of Le Barroux.”

3. A means of resisting pointed out by Archbishop Lefebvre

Satan’s master stroke has been working well for about fifty years.  It is to be foreseen that the devil will continue using it.  How can we resist and not allow ourselves to be tricked by it?

Archbishop Lefebvre himself gives us some good advice.

First off, distinguish the two Romes:

“We can think that there is Rome and Rome: [on one hand,] there is the Rome which is eternal in Her Faith, Her Dogmas, Her concept of the Sacrifice of the Mass; [on the other hand,] there is the temporal Rome which is influenced by the ideas of the modern world, an influence which the Council itself did not escape.5”

Then we must clearly manifest our refusal to follow neo-Modernist Rome. Some weeks after writing his text on “Satan’s master stroke”, in his famous Declaration of 21 November 1974, Archbishop Lefebvre returned to this distinction of the two Romes and explained his refusal to follow neo-Modernist Rome:

“We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this Faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. “

In his Spiritual Journey6,“written for us in 1990, as his spiritual will and testament7”, Archbishop Lefebvre reaffirmed with force the necessity of breaking with neo-Modernist Rome, once more called “Conciliar church”:

“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith!”

As Archbishop Lefebvre also said: “it is the superiors who make the subjects8” and not the opposite. Whence the necessity of maintaining a respectful distance from the Modernist Roman authorities and of observing the principle which was that of the Society of Saint Pius X between 1998 and 2012: “No canonical agreement with Rome before a doctrinal agreement”.

This principle was bequeathed by Archbishop Lefebvre after the failure of the negotiations of 1988. Here, for example, are some extracts of the article entitled “À une reprise des colloques, je poserai mes conditions” (“If talks were renewed, I would lay down my conditions”), which appeared in Fideliter No. 66 of December 1988:

“I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion on the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” Thus, the positions will be clear.”

This principle was repeated very many times by the authorities of the Society of Saint Pius X, notably by the Chapter of 2006:

“The contacts made from time to time [by the Society] with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. “

In 2008, Bishop Fellay judged, correctly, that this principle is based on the order of the nature of things:

“It is so clear for us that the issue of the Faith and of the spirit of Faith has priority over all that we cannot consider a practical solution before the first issue is safely resolved. […] Each day brings additional proofs that we must clarify to the maximum the underlying issues before taking one more step toward a canonical situation, which is not in itself displeasing to us. But this is a matter of following the order of the nature of things, and to start from the wrong end would unavoidably place us in an unbearable situation. We have daily proofs of this. What is at stake is nothing more nor less than our future existence.9“

And yet, in March 2012 Bishop Fellay announced that he was abandoning this principle, because of the improvement in Rome since 200610, and this abandonment was supported by the General Chapter of the Society of Saint Pius X in July 2012: the condition of an agreement on doctrine no longer figures amongst the six conditions laid down for a canonical recognition.11

Since then, despite many pleas, Bishop Fellay has refused to return to the old principle. Whence the troubles which Tradition has been experiencing for three years now.

(Continue to Part 2)

  1. Paul VI, Declaration of 7 December 1968. Source in French: Documentation Catholique, 5 January 1969, Column 12.
  2. Homily of Paul VI of 6/29/1972.   Source (in French): http://notredamedesneiges.-overblog. Text in Italian: http://www.vatican.va/… Strangely, it is not the text itself which is reproduced, but a “report”, which is undoubtedly the work of the Curia offices.
  3. “It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people”(John XI, 50).
  4. Founder of the Society of Saint Peter
  5. « Le coup de maître de Satan » (“Satan’s Masterstroke”), 13 October, 1974.
  6. Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, Angelus Press, 1991.
  7. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais , sermon of 1 January, 2015.
  8. Fideliter, 70, p.6.
  9. Letter to Friends and Benefactors, No. 73, 23 October, 2008.
  10. “The Chapter in 2006 set forth a very clear line of conduct in matters concerning our situation with respect to Rome. We give priority to the Faith, without seeking for our part a practical solution BEFORE the doctrinal question is resolved. This is not a principle, but a line of conduct that should regulate our concrete action. […] If there were a change in the situation of the Church with respect to Tradition, then that might necessitate a corresponding modification of the conclusion. […] Now there is no doubt that since 2006 we have witnessed a development in the Church, an important and extremely interesting development, although it is not very visible. […] This requires that we take up a new position with respect to the official Church. […] This is the context in which it is advisable to ask the question about some form of recognition of the Society by the official Church. […] Our new friends in Rome declare that the impact of such recognition would be extremely powerful on the whole Church.” (Bishop Fellay, Cor Unum, 18 March, 2012).
  11. “Sine qua non conditions to be laid down by the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X in the case of a canonical recognition: 1 Freedom to keep, to transmit and to teach the sane doctrine of the unchanging magisterium of the Church and of the unchangeable truth of Divine Tradition ; freedom to defend, to correct and to reprove, even in public, those responsible for the errors or novelties of modernism, of liberalism, of The Second Vatican Council and their consequences ; 2 Exclusive use of the liturgy of 1962. The retention of the sacramental practice that we have at the moment (including holy orders, confirmation and marriage) ; 3 The guarantee of at least one bishop. – Desirable conditions: 1 Our own ecclesiastical tribunals, in the first instance ; 2 Exemption of houses of The Society of St Pius X in respect of diocesan bishops ; 3 A Pontifical Commission in Rome for Tradition, dependent on the Pope, with a majority of members, and the presidency, from Tradition”. (Father Christian Thouvenot, Circular Letter to Superiors of 18 July 2012. French source: http://tradinews.blogspot.fr/2012/07…)