Spirit of Compromise

To Say That A Canonical Recognition Is Not Feasible Before Rome Returns To Tradition, Is This A Schismatic Attitude?

admin -FEATURED POSTS - FRONT PAGE, conciliar Church, FEATURED POSTS - Articles and Texts section

To Say That A Canonical Recognition

Is Not Feasible Before Rome Returns To Tradition,

Is This A Schismatic Attitude?

By Maubert

published in Le Sel de la Terre 107

Reasons for an Affirmative Response

  • First Reason

Refusing the jurisdiction that is offered to us amounts to denying all jurisdiction that comes from the pope. However, to deny the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, is the characteristic of schismatics.

  • Second Reason

To deny communion with the pope and most of the faithful, during more and more years, has given us a schismatic attitude: we do not feel the need to integrate the “visible perimeter” of the Church, so we have lost the Sensus Ecclesiae.

  • Third Reason

To stand apart from Church authorities when they ask us to abandon faith and the liturgy of time immemorial, is understandable and excuses the schism; but since today we are accepted “just as we are,” our conduct would become unjustified and the schism would be formal.

  • Fourth Reason

The place of Tradition must be in the “official perimeter” of the Church so that it remains visible.

Opinions to the Contrary

To continue to profess the faith of all time and to celebrate with traditional worship, away from the conciliar Church has never been considered by Archbishop Lefebvre as a schism: “we truly represent the Catholic Church,” 1 he said, and that was even after the consecrations of 1988, just after John Paul II excommunicated him.

Why should we be now schismatic if we hold the same attitude towards modernist Rome?

In-Depth Response

  • What is schism?

Schism, says Cardinal Billot, opposes the unity of communion. […] It is incurred in two ways :

— First, if one directly refuses obedience to the supreme pontiff, not accepting what he commands, not precisely from the point of view of what is commanded (for that would amount to mere disobedience), but from the point of view of the authority that commands, that is, refusing to recognize the pope as head and superior.

— Secondly, if one separates directly from the communion of the Catholic faithful, for example by behaving like a separate group.2

At first sight, traditionalists seem to be schismatic in two ways:

— the absence of an effective link of dependence suggests that they do not recognize the authority of the pope;

— and they seem to form a sort of “little church” and are called “lefebvrists” or “integrists” while refusing to mingle with other faithful.

  • The bond of faith is first

However, Pope Leo XIII, in the encyclical Satis Cognitum, speaking on the unity of the Church, says this:

« Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite men to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful. »

A few years later, in his magisterial encyclical condemning the false ecumenism, Mortalium Animos, Pius XI will resume the same idea:

« Since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. »

It emerges from these Pontifical teachings that there is in the Church a more fundamental unity than the unity of communion: it is the unity of faith. And for the unity of communion to be true, it is absolutely necessary for it to have the unity of faith. Hence, it is clear that the first schismatics are the heretics: “Heresy,“ says Cardinal Billot, “is a schism, for it directly opposes the unity of faith.” One can oppose the unity of communion without opposing the unity of faith, but one can not oppose the unity of faith without opposing the unity of communion, since the first is the foundation of the second.

  • It is those who deviate from the faith that commit schism

When we consider the situation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, we see that people who occupy positions of authority are imbued with liberalism and modernism. They have imposed reforms that destroy the Church because they oppose traditional faith and worship. Thus, they broke with the Tradition of many centuries, that is to say, definitively, they broke with the unity of faith; and the unity of communion they are trying to achieve is only a pseudo-unity, because it has lost its true foundation. The modernist hierarchy, so long as it is modernist, is heretical: it opposes the unity of faith by preaching its errors and, consequently, to the unity of communion. In other words, it is the conciliar Church that is schismatic because it seeks to achieve a unity that is no longer the Catholic unity.

Archbishop Lefebvre said clearly:

« The conciliar Church is practically schismatic. [….] It is a virtually excommunicated church, because it is a modernist church. The pope wants to create unity without that of faith. It’s a communion. A communion to whom? to what? in what? It is no longer unity. This can only be done in the unity of faith. » 3

  • And the pope?

As Cardinal Journet explains, in The Church of the Incarnate Word, 4 the pope himself can sin against ecclesiastical communion by breaking the unity of direction, which would happen if he did not fulfill his duty. and refused to the Church the orientation it is entitled to expect from him, in the name of one greater than him, Christ, its founder and invisible leader. And it is unfortunately the painful situation in which we have found since the Council. If Archbishop Lefebvre was to stay away from the modernist hierarchy and the conciliar Church, it was by fidelity to Tradition, refusing to commit schism and break with the unity of faith, as it has always been done in the Church. « The Church, Father Calmel O.P. said, is not the mystical body of the pope, but of Christ ». 5 If, therefore, the pope fails in his office to the point of promoting heresy and schism, then it is better to obey Christ. and remain faithful to the Church of all time, even if it means enduring the wrath of the authorities in power. Archbishop Lefebvre preferred to stay away from this hierarchy and this false communion:

« To leave, therefore, from the official Church? To a certain extent, yes, of course. If the bishops are in heresy, it is necessary to leave the midst of the bishops if one does not wish to lose one’s soul. If we get away from these people, it’s absolutely the same as with people who have AIDS. We do not want to catch it. But they have spiritual AIDS, these contagious diseases. If we want to keep health, we must not go with them. » 6

  • Origin of our attitude

In practice, the Catholic must not desire and can not be in communion with a hierarchy that favors modernism, liberalism, and ecumenism which are condemned by the popes and direct the faithful in ways foreign to Tradition. It would be better to endure the persecutions, criticisms, epithets of “schismatics” and “excommunicated,” than to collaborate in the undertakings of this hierarchy and the loss of souls.

1 — Fideliter 70, p. 6.

2 — Cardinal BILLOT, L’Eglise, volume II, Publications of the Courrier de Rome, 2010, p. 69-70.

3 — Fideliter 70, p. 8.

4 — Cardinal JOURNET, L’Eglise du Verbe Incarné, Desclée de Brouwer, Fribourg, 1962, vol. II, p. 839 sq.

5 — Père Roger-Thomas CALMEL O.P., « De l’Église et du pape», in Itinéraires 173, May 1973, p. 28.

6 — Conference in Ecône, 9 September 1988, cited in Fideliter 66, p. 28.

URGENT MESSAGE: Episcopal Consecration today of Fr. Faure, by Bishop Williamson

admin The Fight for the Faith , , ,

Why a Consecration in 2015?

by Dom Thomas Aquinas OSB, superior of the Monastery of Santa Cruz, Brazil

Why a consecration in 2015?

Because the situation remains essentially the same as in 1988. Modernist Rome, which manifested itself at the Council, remains in place and becomes more and more modernist and liberal. The profound perversion of the mind is only intensifying.

But why not wait for the Society of St. Pius X to give us bishops?

Because the authorities of the Society have taken a new direction in relations with Rome.

Do you mean to say that the Society has abandoned the true faith or the fight for the faith?

I mean to say that the leaders of the Society have gradually in recent years, and especially since 2011 and 2012, taken a new direction in their relations with Rome.

But the question is whether or not the Society has abandoned the fight for the faith.  What do you think?

The particularity of liberals is inconsistency. The current leaders of the Society have made the fight of the Society inconsistent. The healthy part of the Society is trying to fight this battle as in the past, but the dominant wing, its Superior General at the top with Fr. Pfluger, persecute those who want to continue this fight as before.

Do you have any proof of that?

It is all too abundant. The refusal to ordain the Dominican and Capuchin candidates at the appointed time in 2012 is one.  The Benedictines of Bellaigue were also threatened.  But much more serious and significant was the scandalous expulsion of Bishop Williamson, preceded by the order to cease the Eleison Comments.  In fact Menzingen does not tolerate us opposing its new orientation.  Menzingen does not want us to publicly continue the fight for the faith as before, following Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer.  The district priests are closely monitored and their articles cannot be published without quite strict permission.

But what harm is there in that?  Every institution must monitor what is being said in its name!

Not like that. We must punish those who write against the Catholic faith, but not install a regime like the one Bishop Fellay already did.  In addition, those with a liberal tendency have broad permission to write, while the book of Father Pivert is removed from sale.  Le Sel de la Terre is frowned upon and removed from press stands.  The most faithful priests are disavowed or even punished or expelled.  Unfortunately, examples abound. The list is already long enough, while the GREC was able to work peacefully and Father Pflüger gives his scandalous interviews without being disturbed.

But there are good articles in Le Chardonnet, for example.  Isn’t it wrong to say that the anti-liberals are persecuted in the Society?

Yes, there are still some good articles in Le Chardonnet, and not only in Le Chardonnet. Unfortunately, this is far from preventing the accordist tendency of Menzingen to move forward.

Do you mean, basically, that Menzingen is betraying the fight for the faith?

Yes, Menzingen is betraying the fight for the faith.  That is why a consecration has become necessary to assure the continuity of the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, especially as Bishop Fellay now refuses to ordain candidates opposed to his policy, as is the case for several religious communities of men to whom he also refuses the Holy Oils (necessary to baptize children and give extreme unction to the dying).

“We continue,” very simply, as Archbishop Lefebvre used to say.  And we believe that good Catholics support us from the bottom of their heart.  If we seem to be too hard towards Menzingen, take the time to go through the long series of events that have marked the history of Tradition in recent years and you will see that the two most combative bishops of Tradition were, one, expelled from the Society, the other, silenced, at least in part. Added to this are the iniquitous trials of Fr. Pinaud and Fr. Salenave, and still so many facts.

What do you think about the candidate chosen?

He was chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.  He proposed another name.  It is to his credit.  Today he accepts this heavy burden.  We are deeply grateful to him.  To conclude, let us also and especially give our gratitude to Bishop Williamson who knew how to protect and transmit the legacy received from the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, which is none other than the deposit of the faith entrusted by Our Lord to the Apostles.

A final appeal: Read the works ofArchbishop Lefebvre. Everything is there. Read also the Eleison Comments to understand the seriousness of the current evil.  Corçâo said: “Only the saints believe in evil.”  Deep words which are a warning.   May Our Lady help us to see the evil where it is, to work with her, she who has always crushed the head of the infernal serpent. “Ipsa conteret.”   That is the motto of Bishop Jean-Michel Faure.  May Our Lady bless him and protect him “ad multos annos”.

March 18, 2015

Ecclesia Dei

admin conciliar Church, Uncategorized ,

Why such a doctrinal evolution of the Ecclesia Dei Communities ?

This text was written several years ago by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. It was addressed to those of his confreres who had left the SSPX in order to receive an official canonical status from the Conciliar Church. He was trying to find a reason that would explain their doctrinal evolution.

There is an important difference between the clear, consistent declarations made by Archbishop Lefebvre right from his early days on Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and Vatican II, and the position presently held by yourself.

To explain this situation, there are only three possible hypotheses: 1) either you never knew the real position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, and you followed him not properly knowing why; 2) you understood his position but did not approve of it, and so you hypocritically gave the appearance of remaining with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX; or 3) your doctrinal position evolved between the period “before”, and the period “after” the Episcopal consecrations.

1. The hypothesis that you may be ignorant seems to be psychologically impossible and even absurd. It is simply impossible for any of you not to have read even one work by Archbishop Lefebvre, not to have heard even one of his sermons, and not to have known his firm official position. Your ignorance in this matter must be categorically rejected.

2. The hypothesis of hypocrisy may well be possible. Nevertheless, it seems highly improbable given the number of persons involved and their moral character. Furthermore, the hypothesis of hypocrisy represents an insult so serious that I would accept it only after hearing an explicit declaration upholding this position by the individuals in question. That is why I reject this hypothesis as the explanation for your evolution.

3. Therefore, if you know Archbishop Lefebvre’s position on Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and Vatican II (we reject ignorance); if you are not a secret opponent and liar (we reject hypocrisy); then that only leaves the third hypothesis as the right one: your change of position can only be explained by a doctrinal evolution of your position.

But where does this doctrinal evolution come from?

Here, two hypotheses are possible: either the cause is of a purely intellectual order, or it is of a moral and psychological order.

A. The hypothesis that the evolution is purely intellectual seems to fall under the heading of  miracles rather than factual history. One would have to imagine that there was a sudden change in thinking, an intellectual illumination, on the goodness of Liturgical Reform, on the truth contained in Dignitatis Humanae, or on the timeliness of Vatican II.  A serious historian must reject such an unlikely hypothesis.

B. The only valid hypothesis is that of a moral and psychological order, in other words, one that originates from exterior circumstances.  Only one conclusion is possible: it is your dealings with Rome and with diocesan bishops that have brought about this doctrinal evolution.

Indeed, all your Roman and diocesan contacts are in favour of the Liturgical Reform, of Dignitatis Humanae and of Vatican II. It is completely normal, obvious, and historically certain that once you negotiate with Rome and the bishops and once you demand certain concessions, you must then be silent, you must soften or altogether abandon your opposition to the Liturgical Reform, to Dignitatis Humanae and to the Council, or else you will find yourself in a position that will be psychologically unbearable. This is the one true cause of your doctrinal evolution: the moral weight of those with whom you dialogue and your own desire to achieve tangible results from these difficult negotiations where you are in a minority position. This situation forces you to make concessions, if only verbal concessions.

I do not claim that you are making these concessions out of cowardice. I simply claim that, once you have evolved beyond a certain point, you then start to think it possible and even necessary to temper your opposition in the hope of obtaining greater results. But, if I were to consider your present attitude objectively, I would be obliged to note that there has been a shift concerning points that have always been considered as vital in the combat for Tradition.

The conclusion is therefore extremely clear: in spite of your good intentions and your initial desire to remain faithful to Tradition, it was impossible for you to continue to firmly resist the Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and the Council, and at the same time to pursue negotiations with those who are firmly in favour of these three key points.

As things stand at present, negotiations and agreements with Rome and with diocesan bishops must necessarily end up, sooner or later, with the abandonment of the positions that were always held in Tradition and notably by Archbishop Lefebvre.

In other words, present-day Rome has but one goal: to lead all who negotiate with Rome towards the errors of the Council and Liturgical Reform. The truth is there for all to see: Rome is not in favour of Tradition. That is why they have not kept their promises. That is why Rome did not sincerely wish the negotiations to succeed.

* * *

The author of the above text has now “evolved” himself, as is shown in a statement in the December 2014 issue of a widely diffused publication:

« We wish with all our hearts for a speedy “reconciliation” that would benefit both groups and also the entire Church. The difficulties are objective and do not primarily depend on individuals, but we may always pray that Our Lord “gather His Church in unity”. That is what we fervently ask for every day. »

Conciliar Rome has not converted. The danger remains the same.

Indult Masses – What did Archbishop Lefebvre think of them?

admin The Fight for the Faith , ,

A Letter from Archbishop Lefebvre, regarding Indult Masses

Let us put this document in context:  It was written several months after “Operation Survival,” the consecration of the four bishops on 30 June 1988, which was accomplished not only without the approval of Pope John Paul II, but also against his will. The Fraternity of St. Peter was created the day following the consecrations, and conciliar Rome was busy trying to ‘pull in’ the more or less traditional Catholics.

It is always good to reread Archbishop Lefebvre, particularly in order to understand that beyond some conciliatory steps and words towards the supreme authority (of the Church), he was not fooled.  He was well aware of the Fight for the Faith that (unfortunately) it was necessary to lead against this authority.

Here is the text of his letter [bold emphasis is added by us]:

Saint-Michel en Brenne, 18 March 1989

I am responding immediately to your kind letter which I received yesterday at Saint-Michel1, to tell you what I think about those priests who have received a “celebret” from the Roman Commission2 charged with dividing and destroying us.

It is evident that by putting themselves in the hands of the current conciliar authorities, they are implicitly accepting the Council and the ensuing reforms, even if they have received some privileges which remain exceptional and provisory.

Their speech is paralyzed because of this acceptance. The bishops are watching them! It is very regrettable that these priests are not aware of this reality.  But we cannot fool the faithful.

The same may be said regarding these “traditional Masses” organized by the dioceses. They are celebrated between two conciliar masses. The celebrating priest says the new as well as the old.  How, and by whom is Holy Communion distributed? What will the sermon be? etc.

These masses are scams which lead the faithful to compromise their principles!  Many have already abandoned them.

What must change is their liberal and modernist doctrine.  We must arm ourselves with patience and pray. God’s hour will come.

God’s blessings to you on this holy feast of Easter.

Best regards to you in Christ and Mary.

Abp. Lefebvre

1 Saint-Michel en-Brenne is the Mother House of the sisters of the Society.

2 Ecclesia Dei Commission