| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 430 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 426 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google, Yandex
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: An Interview Suppressed by the American Bishops for 10 Years |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-17-2020, 09:15 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
 |
Interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Editor's Note:
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of France made headlines when he was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II for consecrating bishops in contravention of orders from Rome. While much has been written about the controversial churchman, very little has been heard directly from him. As a consequence, many people are confused about what is involved in his so-called rebellion and what motivates him.
The following interview with the archbishop was to have been published in 1978 by a leading American Catholic publication. However, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened the publication's publisher with excommunication and decreed virtual extinction for the publication itself if the interview were run. In fact, the bishops ordered that no Catholic publication could run this interview with Archbishop Lefebvre.
An edited version of the interview was finally published in The Spotlight, a weekly newspaper in Washington, D.C., in its issue of July 18, 1988. The complete and unedited interview is transcribed below.
The Spotlight makes no case for or against the doctrinal positions of Archbishop Lefebvre. We printed the interview for we find his statements of 14 years ago, if read in the light of current events, to be extremely timely.
The world itself we find to be in a state of near collapse and the Catholic Church an institution that was once regarded by friend and foe alike to be changeless, now to be riddled with elements of moral relativism, communism, homosexuality and gross uncertainty. Archbishop Lefebvre speaks out in opposition to these trends. The questions asked of the archbishop are in dark type; his responses in light type.
You have debated and taken part in the deliberations of the second council of the Vatican, have you not?
Yes.
Did you not sign and agree to the resolutions of this council?
No. First of all, I have not signed all the documents of Vatican II because of the last two acts. The first, concerned with "Religion and Freedom," I have not signed. The other one, that of “The Church in the Modern World”, I also have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism.
Are you on record for not only not signing the documents but also on record to publicly oppose them?
Yes. In a book, which I have published in France, I accuse the council of error on these resolutions, and I have given all the documents by which I attack the position of the council - principally, the two resolutions concerning the issues of religion and freedom and "The Church in the Modern World.”
Why were you against these decrees?
Because these two resolutions are inspired by liberal ideology which former popes described to us-that is to say, a religious license as understood and promoted by the Freemasons, the humanists, the modernists and the liberals.
Why do you object to them?
This ideology says that all the cultures are equal; all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith. All this leads to the abuse and perversion of freedom of thought. All these perversions of freedom, which were condemned throughout the centuries by all the popes, have now been accepted by the council of Vatican II.
Who placed these particular resolutions on the agenda?
I believe there were a number of cardinals assisted by theological experts who were in agreement with liberal ideas.
Who, for example?
Cardinal (Augustine) Bea (a German Jesuit), Cardinal (Leo) Suenens (from Belgium), Cardinal (Joseph) Frings (from Germany), Cardinal (Franz) Koenig (from Austria). These personalities had already gathered and discussed these resolutions before the council and it was their precise aim to make a compromise with the secular world, to introduce Illuminist and modernist ideas in the church doctrines.
Were there any American cardinals supporting these ideas and resolutions?
I do not recall their names at present, but there were some. However, a leading force in favor of these resolutions was Father Murray.
Are you referring to Father John Courtney Murray (an American Jesuit)?
Yes.
What part has he played?
He has played a very active part during all the deliberations and drafting of these documents.
Did you let the pope (Paul VI) know of your concern and disquiet regarding these resolutions?
I have talked to the pope. I have talked to the council. I have made three public interventions, two of which I have filed with the secretariat. Therefore, there were five interventions against these resolutions of Vatican II. In fact, the opposition led against these resolutions was such that the pope attempted to establish a commission with the aim of reconciling the opposing parties within the council. There were to be three members, of which I was one.
When the liberal cardinals learned that my name was on this commission, they went to see the holy father (the pope) and told him bluntly that they would not accept this commission and that they would not accept my presence on this com- mission. The pressure on the pope was such that he gave up the idea. I have done everything I could to stop these resolutions which I judge contrary and destructive to the Catholic faith. The council was convened legitimately, but it was for the purpose of putting all these ideas through.
Were there other cardinals supporting you?
Yes. There was Cardinal (Ernesto) Ruffini (of Palermo), Cardinal (Giuseppe) Siri (of Genoa) and Cardinal (Antonio) Caggiano (of Buenos Aires).
Were there any bishops supporting you?
Yes. Many bishops supported my stand.
How many bishops?
There were in excess of 250 bishops. They had even formed themselves into a group for the purpose of defending the true Catholic faith.
What happened to all of these supporters?
Some are dead; some are dispersed throughout the world; many still support me in their hearts but are frightened to lose the position, which they feel may be useful at a later time.
Is anybody supporting you today (1978)?
Yes. For instance, Bishop Pintinello from Italy; Bishop Castro de Mayer from Brazil. Many other bishops and cardinals often contact me to express their support but wish at this date to remain anonymous.
What about those bishops who are not liberals but still oppose and criticize you?
Their opposition is based on an inaccurate understanding of obedience to the pope. It is, perhaps, a well-meant obedience, which could be traced to the ultramontane obedience of the last century, which in those days was good because the popes were good. However, today, it is a blind obedience, which has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic faith.
At this stage it is relevant to remind Catholics allover the world that obedience to the pope is not a primary virtue.
The hierarchy of virtues starts with the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity followed by the four cardinal virtues of justice, temperance, prudence and fortitude. Obedience is a derivative of the cardinal virtue of justice. Therefore it is far from ranking first in the hierarchy of virtues.
Certain bishops do not wish to give the slightest impression that they are opposed to the Holy Father. I understand how they feel. It is evidently very unpleasant, if not very painful. I certainly do not like to be in opposition to the Holy Father, but I have no choice considering what is coming to us from Rome at present, which is in opposition to the Catholic doctrine and is unacceptable to Catholics.
Do you suggest that the holy father accepts these particular ideas?
Yes. He does. But it is not only the holy father. It is a whole trend. I have mentioned to you some of the cardinals involved in these ideas. More than a century ago, secret societies, Illuminati, humanist, modernist and others, of which we have now all the texts and proofs, were preparing for a Vatican council in which they would infiltrate their own ideas for a humanist church.
Do you suggest that some cardinals could have been members of such secret societies?
This is not a very important matter at this stage whether they are or not. What is very important and grave is that they, for all intents and purposes, act just as if they were agents or servants of humanist secret societies.
Do you suggest that these cardinals could have taken up such ideas deliberately or were they given the wrong information or were they duped or a combination of all?
I think that humanist and liberal ideas spread throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. These secular ideas were spread everywhere, in government and churches alike. These ideas have penetrated into the seminaries and throughout the church. And today the church wakes up finding itself in a liberal straitjacket.
This is why one meets liberal influence that has penetrated all strata of secular life during the last two centuries, right inside the church. Vatican Council II was engineered by liberals; it was a liberal council; the pope is a liberal and those who surround him are liberals.
Are you suggesting that the pope is a liberal even if he has never declared himself to be a liberal?
The pope has never denied that he was (a liberal).
When did the pope indicate that he was a liberal?
The pope stated on many occasions that he was in favor of modernist ideas, in favor of a compromise with the world. In his own words, it was necessary.’to throw a bridge between the church and the secular world.'
The pope said that it was necessary to accept humanist ideas, that is was necessary to discuss such ideas; that it was necessary to have dialogs. At this stage, it is important to state that dialogs are contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic faith. Dialogs presuppose the coming together of two equal and opposing sides; therefore, in no way could (dialog) have anything to do with the Catholic faith.
We believe and accept our faith as the only true faith in the world. All this confusion ends up in compromises, which destroy the church's doctrines, for the misfortune of mankind and the church alike.
You have stated that you know the reason for the decline in church attendance and lack of interest in the church today, which you reportedly attributed to the resolutions of Vatican II. Is that correct?
I would not say that Vatican II would have prevented what is happening in the church today. Modernist ideas have penetrated everywhere for a long time and that has not been good for the church. But the fact that some members of the clergy have professed such ideas, that is to say the ideas of perverted freedom, in that case-license.
The idea that all truths are equal, all religions are the same, consequently, all the moralities are the same, that everybody's conscience is equal, that everybody can judge theologically what he can do - these are really humanist ideas – (the idea) of total license with no discipline of thought whatever which leads to the position that anybody can do whatever he likes. All of this is absolutely contrary to our Catholic faith.
You have said that most of these theological counselors and experts only pretend that they are representing the majority of the people, that in fact the people are really not represented by these liberal theologians. Could you explain?
By 'majority of the people,' I mean all the people who honestly work for a living. I mean the people on the land, people of common sense in contact with the real world, the lasting world. These people are the majority of the people, who prefer traditions and order to chaos.
There is a movement of all these people throughout the world, who are slowly coalescing in total opposition to all the changes that were made in their name, of their religion.
These people of good will and good sense have been so traumatized by these dramatic changes that they are now reluctant to attend church. When they go into a modernist church, they do not meet what is sacred-the mystical character of the church, all that which is really divine.
What leads to God is divine and they no longer meet God in these churches. Why should they come to a place where God is absent?
People perceive this very well and the liberal cardinals and their advisers have seriously underestimated the loyalty of the majority to their true faith. How (else) can you explain that as soon as we open a traditional chapel or church, every-body rushes in from everywhere? We have standing room only. The Masses go on all day to accommodate the faithful.
Why? Because they find once again what they need: the sacred, the mystical, the respect for the sacred.
For instance, you would see at the airport different people coming to the priests who were there to meet me, shaking their hands - total strangers. Why? Because where people find a priest, a real priest, a priest that behaves like a priest, who dresses like a priest, they are attracted to him immediately and follow him.
This happens here in the United States, it happens in Europe and everywhere in the world. People in the street coming to greet a priest; they come to congratulate him out of the blue and tell him how glad they are to see a real priest, to tell him how glad they are that there are still some priests.
Do you suggest that clothes and habit make a difference in the quality of the priest?
Habits and clothing are, of course, only a symbol, but it is to what this symbol represents that people are attracted, not, of course, the symbol itself.
Why do you appear to attach such importance to the rituals of the Tridentine Mass?1
We certainly do not insist on rituals just for the sake of rituals but merely as symbol of our faith. In that context, we do believe they are important. However, it is the substance and not the rituals of the Tridentine Mass that has been removed.
Could you be more specific?
The new Offertory prayers do not express the Catholic notion of the sacrifice. They simply express the concept of a mere partaking of bread and wine. For instance, this Tridentine Mass addressed to God the prayer: "Accept O Holy Father, heavenly and eternal God, this immaculate victim which your unworthy servant offers to you, my living and true God to atone for my numberless sins, offenses and negligences." The New Mass says: 'We offer this bread as the bread of life.' There is no mention of sacrifice or victim. This text is vague and imprecise, lends itself to ambiguity and was meant to be acceptable to Protestants. It is, however, unacceptable to the true Catholic faith and doctrine. The substance has been changed in favor of accommodation and compromise.
Why do you appear to attach such importance to the Latin Mass rather than the vernacular Mass approved by Vatican Council II?
First the question of the Latin Mass is a secondary question under certain circumstances. But under another aspect it is a very important question. It is important because it is a way to fix the word of our faith, the Catholic dogma and doctrines. It is a way of not changing our faith because in translations affecting these Latin words, one does not render exactly the truth of our faith as it is expressed and embodied in Latin.
It is indeed very dangerous because little by little one can lose faith itself. These translations do not reflect the exact words of the Consecration. These words are changed in the vernacular.
Could you give me an example?
Yes. For instance, in the vernacular, it is said that "the Precious Blood is for all." When in the Latin text (even the latest, revised Latin text), the text says, "the Precious Blood is for many" and not for all. All is certainly different from many. This is only a minor example that illustrates the inaccuracies of current translations.
Could you quote a translation, which would actually contradict Catholic dogma?
Yes. For example, in the Latin text, the Virgin Mary is referred to as “Semper Virgo," "always virgin.” In all the modern translations, the word "always" has been deleted. This is very serious because there is a great difference between "virgin" and "always virgin." It is most dangerous to tamper with translations of this kind.
Latin is also important to keep the unity of the Church because when one travels - and people travel more and more in foreign countries these days - it is important for them to find the same echoes that they have heard from a priest at home, whether in the United States, South America, Europe or any other part of the world. They are at home in any church. It is their Catholic Mass, which is being celebrated. They have always heard the Latin words since childhood, their parents before them, and their grandparents before them. It is an identifying mark of their faith.
Now, when they go into a foreign church, they don't understand a word. Foreigners who come here don't understand a word. What is the good of going to a Mass in English, Italian or Spanish when no one can understand a word?
But wouldn't most of these people understand Latin even less? What is the difference?
The difference is that the Latin of the Catholic Mass has always been taught through religious instruction since childhood. There have been numerous books on the matter. It has been taught throughout the, ages - it is not that difficult to remember.
Latin is an exact expression, which has been familiar to generations of Catholics. Whenever Latin is found in another Church, it immediately creates the proper atmosphere for the worship of God. It is the distinctive tongue of the Catholic faith, which unites all the Catholics throughout the world regardless of their national tongue.
They are not disoriented or baffled. They say: This is my Mass, it is the Mass of my parents, it is the Mass to follow, it is the Mass of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the eternal and unchanging Mass. Therefore from the point of view of unity, it is a very important symbolic link; it is a mark of identity for all Catholics.
But it is far more serious than simply a change of tongue. Under the spirit of Ecumenism, it is an attempt to create a rapprochement with the Protestants.
What proof do you have of this?
It is quite evident because there were five Protestants who assisted in the reform of our Liturgy. The archbishop of Cincinnati, who was present during these deliberations, said that not only these five Protestants were present but also they took a very active part in the debates and participated directly in the reform of our Liturgy.
Who were these Protestants?
They were Protestant ministers representing different Protestant denominations who were called by Rome to participate in the reform of our Liturgy which shows clearly that there was a purpose to all this. They were Dr. George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Sheperd, Dr. Smith, Dr. Koneth and Dr. Thurian. Msgr. Bugnini did not hide this purpose. He spelled it out very clearly. He said, “We are going to make an Ecumenical Mass as we have made an Ecumenical Bible."
All this is very dangerous because it is our faith that is attacked. When a Protestant celebrates the same Mass as we do, he interprets the text in a different way because his faith is different. Therefore, it is an ambiguous Mass. It is an equivocal Mass. It is no longer a Catholic Mass.
What Ecumenical Bible are you referring to?
There is an Ecumenical Bible made two or three years ago, which was recognized by many bishops. I do not know whether the Vatican publicly endorsed it, but it certainly did not suppress it because it is used in many dioceses. For instance, two weeks ago, the Bishop of Fribourg in Switzerland had Protestant pastors explaining this Ecumenical Bible to all the children of Catholic schools. These lessons were the same for Catholics and Protestants. And what has this Ecumenical Bible to do with the Word of God?
Since the Word of God cannot be changed, all this leads to more and more confusion. When I think that the archbishop of Houston, Texas will not allow Catholic children to be confirmed unless they go with their parents to follow a 15-day instruction course from the local rabbi and the local Protestant minister.
If the parents refuse to send their children to such instructions, they (the children) cannot get confirmed. They have to produce a signed certificate from the rabbi and the Protestant minister that both the parents and the children have duly attended the instruction and only then can they (the children) be confirmed by the bishop.
These are the absurdities with which we end up when we follow the liberal road. Not only this, but now we are even reaching the Buddhists and the Moslems. Many bishops were embarrassed when the representative of the pope was received in a shameful manner by the Moslems recently.
What happened?
I do not recall all the specific details, but this incident happened in Tripoli, Libya, where the representative of the pope wanted to pray with the Moslems. These Moslems refused and went about their separate ways and prayed in their fashion, leaving the representative high and dry, not knowing what to do. This illustrates the naiveté of these liberal Catholics who feel that it is enough to go and talk with these Moslems and for them to accept immediately a compromise of their own religion.
The mere fact of wanting to have a close relationship with the Moslems for that purpose only attracts the contempt of the Moslems toward us. It is a well-known fact that Moslems will never change anything of their religion; it is absolutely out of the question.
If the Catholics come to equate our religion with theirs, it only leads to confusion and contempt, which they take as an attempt to discredit their religion and not caring about our religion. They are far more respectful of anyone who says that, “I am a Catholic; I cannot pray with you because we do not have the same convictions.” This person is more respected by the Moslems than the one who says that all the religions are the same; that we all believe the same things; we all have the same faith. They feel this person is insulting them.
But doesn't the Koran display moving verses of praise toward Mary and Jesus?
Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet and has great respect for Mary, and this certainly places Islam nearer to our religion than say, for instance, Judaism, which is far more distant from us. Islam was born in the 7th century and it has benefited to some degree from the Christian teachings of those days.
Judaism, on the other hand, is the heir to the system, which crucified our Lord. And the members of this religion, who have not converted to Christ, are those who are radically opposed to our Lord Jesus Christ. For them, there is no question whatever of recognizing our Lord.
They are in opposition to the very foundation and existence of the Catholic faith on this subject. However, we cannot both be right. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Lord and Savior or He is not. This is one case where there cannot be the slightest compromise without destroying the very foundation of Catholic faith. This does not only apply to religions, which are directly opposed to the divinity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God but also to religions, which, without opposing Him, do not recognize Him, as such.
Therefore you are very sure and dogmatic on this point?
Completely dogmatic. For example, the Moslems have a very different way to conceive God than we have. Their conception of God is very materialistic. It is not possible to say that their God is the same as our God.
But isn't God the same God for all the people of the world?
Yes. I believe that God is the same God for the whole universe according to the faith of the Catholic Church. But the conception of God differs greatly from religion to religion. Our Catholic faith is the one and only true faith. If one does not believe in it absolutely, one cannot claim to be a Catholic. Our faith is the one that in the world we cannot compromise in any way. God as conceived by the Moslems says: "When God says to His believers, 'When you go to paradise, you will be a hundred times richer than you are now on earth. This also applies to the number of wives that you have here on earth'." This conception of God is hardly what our Lord and Savior is about.
Why do you attach more importance to Pope St. Pius V than to Pope Paul VI? After all, both are equally pope. Do you not accept the doctrine of papal infallibility? Do you feel that this doctrine applies more to one than the other?
I feel that on the side that Pope St. Pius V wanted to engage his infallibility because he used all the terms that all the popes traditionally and generally used when they want(ed) to manifest their infallibility. On the other hand, Pope Paul VI said himself that he didn't want to use his infallibility.
When did he indicate that?
He indicated this by not pronouncing his infallibility on any matter of faith as other popes have done throughout history. None of the decrees of Vatican II were issued with the weight of infallibility. Further, he has never engaged his infallibility on the subject of the Mass. He has never employed terms that have been employed by Pope St. Pius V when he (Paul VI) decided to allow this new Mass to be foisted on the faithful. I cannot compare the two acts of promulgation because they are completely different.
Has Pope Paul VI ever said that he did not believe in papal infallibility?
No. He never actually said this categorically. But Pope Paul VI is a liberal and he does not believe in the fixity of dogmas. He does not believe that a dogma must remain unchanged forever. He is for some evolution according to the wishes of men. He is for changes that are originated by humanist and modernist sources. And this is why he has so much trouble in fixing a truth forever. In fact, he is loathe to do so personally and he is very ill at ease whenever such cases have arisen. This attitude reflects the spirit of modernism. The pope has never employed his infallibility in the matter of faith and morals to date.
Has the pope stated himself that he was a liberal or modernist?
Yes. The pope has manifested this in the council, which is not a pastoral council. He has also clearly stated so in his encyclical called Ecclesiam Suam. He has stated that his encyclicals would not define matters but he wished that they would be accepted as advice and lead to a dialogue. In his Credo, he said that he did not wish to employ his infallibility, which clearly shows where his leanings are.
Do you feel that his evolution toward dialogue is what allows you not to be in disagreement with the pope?
Yes. From the liberal standpoint they should allow this dialogue. When the pope does not use his infallibility on the subject of faith and morals, one is very much freer to discuss his words and his acts. From my point of view, I am bound to oppose what has taken place because it subverts the infallible teachings of the popes over 2,000 years. I am, however, not in favor of such dialogues because one cannot seriously dialogue about the truth of the Catholic faith. So really this is an inverted dialogue, which is forced upon me.
What would happen if the pope suddenly utilized his infallibility to order you to obey him? What would you do?
In the measure where the pope would employ his infallibility as the successor of St. Peter in a solemn manner, I believe that the Holy Ghost would not allow the pope to be in error at this very moment. Of course, I would heed the pope then.
But if the pope invoked his infallibility to back the changes you so strongly object to now, what would your attitude be then?
The question does not even arise, because, fortunately, the Holy Ghost is always there and the Holy Ghost would make sure that the pope would not use his infallibility for something that would be contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is for this very reason that the pope does not employ his infallibility because the Holy Ghost would not allow such changes to take place under the imprimatur of infallibility.
But if this should come to pass?
It is inconceivable, but if it did, the church would cease to exist. That would mean there would be no God, because God would be contradicting Himself, which is impossible.
But isn't the fact that Pope Paul VI occupies the seat of St. Peter enough for you to heed whatever the pontiff as the vicar of Christ on earth asks you to do, just as other Catholics do?
Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun.
He was only infallible in very specific matters of faith and morals. At that time, many enemies of the church did all they could to ridicule this dogma and propagate misconceptions. For example, the enemies of the church often said to the unknowing and naive that if the pope said a dog was a cat, it was the duty of Catholics blindly to accept this position without any question.
Of course this was an absurd interpretation and the Catholics knew that. This time the same enemies of the church, now that it serves their purpose, are working very hard to have whatever the pope says accepted, without question, as infallible, almost as if his words were uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ himself.
This impression, although widely promoted, is nevertheless utterly false.
Infallibility is extremely limited, only bearing on very specific cases which Vatican I has very well defined and detailed. It is not possible to say that whenever the pope speaks he is infallible. The fact is that the pope is a liberal, that all this liberal trend has taken place at the Council of Vatican II, and created a direction for the destruction of the church - a destruction which one expects to happen any day.
After all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas. Because I have not aligned myself with these liberal ideas that would destroy the church, there are attempts to suppress my seminaries. And it is for this reason that I am asked to stop ordaining priests.
Enormous pressure is being exerted on me to align myself and to accept this orientation of destruction of the church, a path which I cannot follow. I do not accept to be in contradiction with what the popes have asserted for 20 centuries. Both myself and those who support me obey all the popes who have preceded us, or we obey the present pope. If we do (obey the present pope, i.e. Paul VI), we then disobey all the popes that have preceded us. Finally we end up disobeying the Catholic faith and God.
But as the bishops (of old) obeyed the popes of their days, shouldn't you obey the pope of your day?
The bishops do not have to obey the humanist orders that contradict Catholic faith and doctrine as established by Jesus Christ and all the various popes throughout the centuries.
So then are you deliberately choosing to disobey the present pope?
It has been a soul-searching and painful choice because events have really made it a choice of whom you disobey rather than whom you obey. I am making this choice without doubt or hesitation. I have chosen to disobey the present pope so that I could be in communion with 262 (former) popes.
Your independence has been attributed by several observers to a tradition of Gallicanism.2
On the contrary, I'm completely Roman and not at all Gallican. I'm for the pope as successor of St. Peter in Rome. All we ask is that the pope be, in fact, St. Peter's successor, not the successor of J.J. Rousseau, the Freemasons, the humanists, the modernists and (the) liberals.
Since you have said that these ideas have been widely spread and accepted throughout the world, including within the church, do you not consider you are taking on too much? How do you expect the Society of St. Pius X to counteract such a trend against what would appear overwhelming odds?
I trust our Lord the Saviour. The priests of the Society of St. Pius X trust our Lord and I have no doubt that God is inspiring us all. All those who fight for the true faith have God's full support. Of course, compared to the liberal machine, we are very small. I could die tomorrow. But God is allowing me to live a little longer so that I can help others in fighting for the true faith. It has happened before in the church. True Catholics had to work for the survival of the faith under general opprobrium and persecution from those who pretended to be Catholics. It is a small price to pay for being on the side of Jesus Christ.
When did this happen?
It happened with the very first pope. St. Peter was leading the faithful in error by his bad example of following Mosaic Laws. St. Paul refused to obey this order and led the opposition to it. Paul won out and St. Peter rescinded his error.
In the fourth century. St. Athanasius refused to obey Pope Liberius's orders. At that time, the church had been infiltrated by the ideas of the Arian heresy and the pope had been pressured to go along- with them. St. Athanasius led the opposition against this departure from church doctrine.
He was attacked mercilessly by the hierarchy. He was suspended. When he refused to submit, he was excommunicated. The opposition to the heresy finally built up momentum and at the death of Pope Liberius, a new pope occupied St. Peter's seat and recognized the church's indebtedness to St. Athanasius. The excommunication was lifted. He was recognized as a savior of the church and canonized.
In the seventh century, Pope Honorius I favored the Monotheletism heresy - the proposition that Jesus Christ did not possess a human will and hence was not a true man. Many Catholics who knew the church doctrines refused to accept this and did everything they could to stop the spread of this heresy.
The Council of Constantinople condemned Honorius I in 681 and anathematized him. There are many more examples of this nature when true Catholics stood up against apparent great odds, not to destroy or change the church but to keep the true faith.
I do not consider the odds overwhelming. One of the major aims of our society is to ordain priests - real priests - so that the Sacrifice of the Mass will continue; so that catechisms will continue; so that the Catholic faith will continue. Of course some bishops attack and criticize us. Some try to thwart our mission. But this is only temporary because when all the seminaries will be empty – they are almost empty now - what will the bishops do? Then there will be no more priests.
Why do you think there will be no more priests?
Because the seminaries of today are not teaching anything about the making of a priest; they teach liberal psychology, sociology, humanism, modernism and many other sciences and semi sciences that are either contrary to Catholic doctrine or have nothing whatever to do with church teachings or with what a priest should know. As for Catholic teachings, they are hardly being taught in today's seminaries.
What is being taught in the seminaries today?
For instance, in a New York seminary, theology professors are teaching seminarians that, "Jesus did not necessarily see what the result of His death on the Cross would be;" that: "No one is so thoroughly consistent that he does not say something that disagrees with what he said in the past. This even applies to Jesus;" that, "Joseph may have been the natural father of Christ;” and another professor teaches that: "One psychiatrist recommends extramarital sexual relations as a cure for impotence - I am open in this area and not closed to possibilities.”
Are these statements documented and on record?
Yes.
Have they been brought to the attention of the hierarchy?
On numerous occasions.
Has the hierarchy made any attempt to stop such similar teachings?
Not to my knowledge.
Do you ever feel alone and isolated?
How can I feel alone when I am in communion with 262 popes and the whole of the Catholic faith? If you mean alone among other bishops, the answer is no. Hardly a day goes by that I (do not) receive some communication from some bishops, some priests, some laymen from different parts of the world expressing support and encouragement.
Why do they not come out publicly and support you?
As I have mentioned previously, many feel that they want to keep their positions in order to be in a position to do something about it should the occasion arise.
Does your stand separate you further from other Christian denominations?
Not at all. Only five days ago, some Orthodox heads came to see me to express their support for our stand.
Why should they express support when in fact you say that you are right and they are in error?
It is precisely because my stand is unequivocal that they support me. Many other Christian denominations have always looked at Rome as something of a stabilizing anchor in a tumultuous world. Whatever happened, they felt, Rome was always there, eternal, unchanging.
This presence gave them comfort and confidence.
Even more surprising are the Islamic leaders who have warmly congratulated me on my stand even though they fully know that I do not accept their religion.
Would not Christian charity try to avoid solidifying differences and divisions that could be healed?
Differences and divisions are part of this world. The unity of the church can only be gained by example and unswerving commitment to our Catholic faith. Charity starts with loyalty to one's faith.
What makes you believe that significant numbers of Orthodox, Protestants or Moslems support you?
Apart from direct, frequent contact these people have made with me, there was, for example, an extensive survey conducted by a reputable newspaper in Paris and they have surveyed members of these various denominations. The result was that far from finding our faith offensive or threatening to them, they admired the unequivocal stand, which we are taking.
On the other hand, they show utter contempt for all those liberal Catholics who were trying to make a mishmash of our Catholic faith as well as their religion.
Has not the pope invited you to be reconciled? Have you accepted this invitation?
I requested to see the pope last August. The pope refused unless I signed a statement accepting unconditionally all the resolutions of Vatican II. I would very much like to see the pope, but I cannot sign resolutions paving the way for the destruction of the church.
How can you be loyal to the church and disobedient to the pope?
One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between blind obedience and the virtue of obedience. Indiscriminate obedience is actually a sin against the virtue of obedience.
So if we disobey in order to practice the virtue of obedience rather than submit to unlawful commands contrary to Catholic moral teachings, all one has to do is to consult any Catholic theology books to realize we are not sinning against the virtue of obedience.
Notes
1 The followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre insist on preserving the so-called Tridentine Mass. This was the Mass (and attendant ritual) that followed upon the Council of Trent (Trento, Italy) and that was pronounced as permanent and irrevocable by Pope St. Pius V in 1570. This is the Mass that Latin Rite Roman Catholics knew for 400 years until the service was rewritten after Vatican Council II (1962-1965).
2 Gallicanism, associated with French Roman Catholicism, was a tradition of resistance to papal authority. There were two aspects of Gallicanism, royal and ecclesiastical. The first asserted the rights of French monarchs over the French Roman Catholic Church; the second asserted the rights of general councils over the pope. Both were condemned as heresies at the First Vatican Council in 1870.
|
|
|
| Study: Wearing a 'Used' Mask Could be Worse than No Mask at Alll |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-17-2020, 09:02 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- Replies (2)
|
|
Wearing a used mask could be worse than no mask amid COVID-19: study
NY Post | December 16, 2020
Wearing a used mask could be more dangerous than not wearing one at all when it comes to warding off COVID-19, a new study has found.
A new three-layer surgical mask is 65 percent efficient in filtering particles in the air — but when used, that number drops to 25 percent, according to the study published Tuesday in the Physics of Fluids.
Researchers from the University of Massachusetts Lowell and California Baptist University say that masks slow down airflow, making people more susceptible to breathing in particles — and a dirty face mask can’t effectively filter out the tiniest of droplets.
“It is natural to think that wearing a mask, no matter new or old, should always be better than nothing,” said author Jinxiang Xi.
“Our results show that this belief is only true for particles larger than 5 micrometers, but not for fine particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers.”
To reach their findings, researchers used a computer model of a person wearing a pleated three-layer surgical mask to track how the face covering affected airflow and how particles passed through. They also looked at how the tiny droplets settled onto the face, in the airway and where they land in the nose, pharynx or deep lung.
They found that wearing a mask “significantly slows down” airflow, reducing a mask’s efficacy and making a person more susceptible to inhaling aerosols into the nose — where SARS-CoV-2 likes to lurk.
“In this study, we found that the protective efficacy of a mask for the nasal airway decreases at lower inhalation flow rates,” the study said.
The pleats of a face mask also significantly affect airflow patterns and their efficacy changes with more use, the researchers found. The team plans to study how mask shapes affect protection from COVID-19.
“We hope public health authorities strengthen the current preventative measures to curb COVID-19 transmission, like choosing a more effective mask, wearing it properly for the highest protection, and avoid using an excessively used or expired surgical mask,” said Xi.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Anti-Religious Bigots Are Using Riots And COVID To Go On A Church Vandalism Spree |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-17-2020, 08:33 AM - Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
- No Replies
|
|
Anti-Religious Bigots Are Using Riots And COVID To Go On A Church Vandalism Spree
As our nation wrestles with challenging issues, anti-religious rioters and officeholders are forgetting that successful social movements don’t attack religion.
Rather, they are usually rooted in it.
The Federalist | December 15, 2020
In the chaotic year of 2020, anti-religious activists have learned that the best place to hide is in a crowd. With news cycles crowded by COVID-19, nationwide protests and riots, a contentious election, and much more, such activists were given perfect cover to vandalize houses of worship across America while drawing little criticism from secular media or public officials. These tragic acts of vandalism matter, however, and the motives behind them deserve examination.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently reported at least 39 incidents of vandalism on Catholic Church property since June 22. This alarming number makes sense given the Catholic Church’s history of statuary and the frequent targeting of statues in this year’s riots.
In addition to incidents such as satanic graffiti on a church in Connecticut, and a Florida man driving his van into a church before lighting the vehicle on fire, numerous church statues of Jesus, Mary, saints, and even a monument for children killed by abortion have been toppled, beheaded, and graffitied. That’s not all. The many incidents on church property detailed by the Conference of Catholic Bishops don’t account for the numerous statues of Catholic saints on public property that have been vandalized, too.
In St. Louis, large groups of sometimes-violent protesters graffitied the prominent public statue of St. Louis (King Louis IX), the city’s namesake, who frequently shared meals with beggars and ministered to other outcasts such as lepers, the blind, and even prostitutes.
The violence went further in California. Protesters destroyed a statue of St. Junipero Serra, a Spanish missionary who founded many historic churches (one of which was largely burned down in July) and evangelized thousands of Native Americans. Additionally, as Pope Francis noted when he canonized Serra in 2015, “Junipero sought to defend the dignity of the native community, to protect it from those who had mistreated and abused it.”
Certain elements of the race-related protests this year have surely been honest, well-intentioned efforts, but that cannot be said of this violence that has treated St. Junipero and St. Louis the same way it has treated Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Instead, a subgroup of radical secularists among the rioters has used the recent lawlessness as an opportunity to advance their own agenda — one that opposes Judeo-Christian religion in its entirety.
While Catholic statues have been a convenient target, these radicals haven’t chosen to destroy religious figures at random. Their animosity toward faith traditions is intended. As you might recall, rioters set fire to the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., this past May. In Kenosha, Wisconsin, rioters graffitied “Free Palestine” at a Jewish synagogue. Further examples abound.
Even more tragically, many people of faith have watched this vandalism while being prohibited from stepping inside their own houses of worship, sometimes due to anti-religious discrimination from government officials. One prime example is Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak’s COVID-19 order, currently being challenged in court, which allowed casinos to open at half capacity while limiting churches to just 50 people.
As Archbishop Charles Chaput and Alliance Defending Freedom CEO Michael Farris pointed out, some officials implementing discriminatory restrictions have also been slow to protect the church property from rioters. As our nation wrestles with challenging issues, officials such as Sisolak and anti-religious rioters are forgetting that successful social movements — including the civil rights movement for racial equality in the law — don’t attack religion. Rather, they are usually rooted in it.
The American Revolution and the French Revolution provide a relevant history lesson. These two movements shared some noble goals, both seeking freedom from national theocracy and monarchy — but those ends were pursued in two very different ways.
The French Revolution was outright hostile toward religion. Church property was vandalized. Priests were arrested just for conducting their normal ministry. Religious statues were removed from the public eye and sometimes demolished because religious devotion threatened the aims of the revolution.
Our Founding Fathers chose a better path. They cared deeply about religion and forged a new nation where people of various faiths could live peacefully without coercion from an all-powerful central government. The founders’ success in winning independence, reforming our governance, and improving American life was rooted in a commitment to free speech and Judeo-Christian principles that fostered a true tolerance.
Whether it be responding to COVID-19, police brutality, or political unrest, the solution to our nation’s present problems will not be found in throwing out those principles of liberty and civility. The answer lies in recommitting to them and working to live them out more fully, more consistently, and more devotedly than ever before.
|
|
|
|
| Health Worker Hospitalized After ‘Serious Reaction’ to Pfizer’s CV Vaccine |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-17-2020, 08:28 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- Replies (1)
|
|
Alaska Health Worker Hospitalized After Experiencing ‘Serious Reaction’ to Pfizer’s Coronavirus Vaccine
Breitbart | 16 Dec 20200
A health worker in Alaska experienced a “serious reaction” and was subsequently hospitalized after receiving a dose of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved last week, according to reports.
The worker had what the New York Times described as a “serious reaction” after receiving the vaccination and remained in the hospital as of Wednesday morning, according to the paper. The worker had “no history of drug allergies,” the Times reported, adding that it remains “unclear whether he or she suffered from other types of allergies, according to one person familiar with the case.”
This month, Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) confirmed that it was providing “resuscitation facilities” in vaccination centers following reports of two individuals experiencing anaphylactic reactions after receiving the vaccine. However, the two health care workers reportedly had histories of allergic reactions.
“Resuscitation facilities should be available at all times for all vaccinations. Vaccination should only be carried out in facilities where resuscitation measures are available,” the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said, offering “precautionary advice.”
The FDA approved Pfizer’s vaccine for emergency use on Friday. On Monday, a critical care nurse out of New York reportedly became the first person in the U.S. to receive the Pfizer vaccine outside of clinical trials:
Quote:Today, ICU nurse Sandra Lindsay made history as the first American to be vaccinated.
"I felt a huge sense of relief after I took the vaccine… There is hope." pic.twitter.com/45RWerTqdX
The news coincides with a Kaiser Family Foundation poll released this week, which found that an increasing number of Americans have expressed willingness to receive a vaccine, contingent on two factors: If it is deemed safe and offered for free. Seventy-one percent indicated that they will “definitely” or “probably” get a coronavirus vaccine based on those factors — an eight-point jump from the 63 percent who said the same in September.
Willingness to get the vaccination rose across ethnic groups and political parties, the survey showed.
|
|
|
|
| December 17th - 23rd: The Great 'O Antiphons' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-17-2020, 08:02 AM - Forum: Advent
- Replies (8)
|
|
DECEMBER 17 - THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE GREAT ANTIPHONS
Taken from The Liturgical Year by Dom Prosper Gueranger (1841-1875)
The Church enters to-day on the seven days, which precede the Vigil of Christmas, and which are known in the Liturgy under the name of the Greater Ferias. The ordinary of the Advent Office becomes more solemn; the Antiphons of the Psalms, both for Lauds and the Hours of the day, are proper, and allude expressly to the great Coming. Every day, at Vespers, is sung a solemn Antiphon, which consists of a fervent prayer to the Messias, whom it addresses by one of the titles given him by the sacred Scriptures.
In the Roman Church, there are seven of these Antiphons, one for each of the Greater Ferias, They are commonly called the O’s of Advent, because they all begin with that interjection. In other Churches, during the Middle Ages, two more were added to these seven; one to our Blessed Lady, O Virgo Virginum; and the other to the Angel Gabriel, O Gabriel; or to St. Thomas the Apostle, whose feast comes during the Greater Ferias; it began O Thoma Didyme [It is more modern than the O Gabriel; but dating from the 13th century, it was almost universally used in its stead.] There were even Churches, where twelve Great Antiphons were sung; that is, besides the nine we have just mentioned, there was Rex Pacifice to our Lord, O mundi Domina to our Lady, and O Hierusalem to the city of the people of God.
The canonical Hour of Vespers has been selected as the most appropriate time for this solemn supplication to our Saviour, because, as the Church sings in one of her hymns, it was in the Evening of the world (vergente mundi vespere) that the Messias came amongst us. These Antiphons are sung at the Magnificat, to show us that the Saviour, whom we expect, is to come to us by Mary. They are sung twice; once before and once after the Canticle, as on Double Feasts, and this to show their great solemnity. In some Churches it was formerly the practice to sing them thrice; that is, before the Canticle, before the Gloria Patri, and after the Sicut erat. Lastly, these admirable Antiphons, which contain the whole pith of the Advent Liturgy, are accompanied by a chant replete with melodious gravity, and by ceremonies of great expressiveness, though, in these latter, there is no uniform practice followed. Let us enter into the spirit of the Church; let us reflect on the great Day which is coming; that thus we may take oar share in these the last and most earnest solicitations of the Church imploring her Spouse to come, and to which He at length yields.
+ + +
Here are the Prophecies associated with each of these Titles of Our Lord Jesus Christ:
December 17th: Sapientia - Wisdom
Isaias 11:2-3
And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom, and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge, and of godliness. And he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord, He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears.
Isaias 28:29
This also is come forth from the Lord God of hosts, to make his counsel wonderful, and magnify justice.
December 18th: Adonai - Lord of Israel
Isaias 11:4-5
But he shall judge the poor with justice, and shall reprove with equity the meek of the earth: and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. And justice shall be the girdle of his loins: and faith the girdle of his reins.
Isaias 33:22
For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king: he will save us.
December 19th: Radix Jesse - Root of Jesse
Isaias 11:1
And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root.
Isaias 11:10
In that day the root of Jesse, who standeth for an ensign of the people, him the Gentiles shall beseech, and his sepulchre shall be glorious.
Micheas 5:1
Now shalt thou be laid waste, O daughter of the robber: they have laid siege against us, with a rod shall they strike the cheek of the judge of Israel.
Romans 15:8-13
For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. But that the Gentiles are to glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: Therefore will I confess to thee, O Lord, among the Gentiles, and will sing to thy name. And again he saith: Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. And again: Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and magnify him, all ye people. And again Isaias saith: There shall be a root of Jesse; and he that shall rise up to rule the Gentiles, in him the Gentiles shall hope. Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing; that you may abound in hope, and in the power of the Holy Ghost.
Apocalypse 5:1-5
And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne, a book written within and without, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel, proclaiming with a loud voice: Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man was able, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor under the earth, to open the book, nor to look on it. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open the book, nor to see it. And one of the ancients said to me: Weep not; behold the lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
December 20th: Clavis David - Key of David
Isaias 22:22
And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Isaias 9:6
For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.
December 21st: Oriens - Radiant Dawn, Dayspring
Isaias 9:2
The people that walked in darkness, have seen a great light: to them that dwelt in the region of the shadow of death, light is risen.
Malachias 4:1-3
For behold the day shall come kindled as a furnace: and all the proud, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall set them on fire, saith the Lord of hosts, it shall not leave them root, nor branch. But unto you that fear my name, the Sun of justice shall arise, and health in his wings: and you shall go forth, and shall leap like calves of the herd. And you shall tread down the wicked when they shall be ashes under the sole of your feet in the day that I do this, saith the Lord of hosts.
December 22nd: Rex Gentium - King of all Nations, King of the Gentiles
Isaias 9:7
His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
Isaias 2:4
And he shall judge the Gentiles, and rebuke many people: and they shall turn their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into sickles: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they be exercised any more to war.
December 23rd: Emmanuel - God with us
Isaias 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
|
|
|
|
| January 14th - St. Hilary of Poitiers |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-17-2020, 01:37 AM - Forum: January
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Saint Hilary of Poitiers
Doctor of the Church
(301-368)
Saint Hilary was a native of Poitiers in Aquitaine. Born and educated a pagan, it was not until near middle age that he embraced Christianity, moved to that step primarily by the idea of God presented to him in the Holy Scriptures. He soon converted his wife and daughter, and separated himself rigidly from all non-Catholic company, fearing the influence of error, rampant in a number of false philosophies and heresies, for himself and his family.
He entered Holy Orders with the consent of his very virtuous wife, and separated from his family as was required of the clergy. He later wrote a very famous letter to his dearly-loved daughter, encouraging her to adopt a consecrated life. She followed this counsel and died, still young, a holy death.
In 353 Saint Hilary was chosen bishop of his native city. Arianism, under the protection of the Emperor Constantius, was then at the heights of its exaltation, and Saint Hilary found himself called upon to support the orthodox cause in several Gallic councils, in which Arian bishops formed an overwhelming majority. He was in consequence accused to the emperor, who banished him to Phrygia. He spent his more than three years of exile in composing his great works on the Trinity.
In 359 he attended the Council of Seleucia, in which Arians, semi-Arians, and Catholics contended for the mastery. He never ceased his combat against the errors of the enemies of the Divinity of Christ. With the deputies of the council he went to Constantinople, and there so dismayed the heads of the Arian party that they prevailed upon the emperor to let him return to Gaul. He traversed Gaul, Italy and Illyria, preaching wherever he went, disconcerting the heretics and procuring the triumph of orthodoxy. He wrote a famous treatise on the Synods. After some eight years of missionary travel he returned to Poitiers, where he died in peace in 368.
|
|
|
|
| January 13th - The Baptism of Our Lord and St. Veronica of Milan |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-17-2020, 01:36 AM - Forum: January
- No Replies
|
|
The Baptism of Our Lord
In the life of Christ, His baptism in the Jordan is an event of the highest importance, because it represents a significant phase in the work of redemption. We know that the liturgy of the ecclesiastical year commemorates all the phases of Christ's redemptive work; and recently, during the season of the Nativity, we have reflected on His coming into the world, poor and solitary in a grotto at Bethlehem, and on His circumcision. Now His baptism in the Jordan marks the divinely inaugurated beginning of Our Lord's public life. Indeed, Saint Peter states that at His baptism, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel, He was anointed by the Holy Spirit as the Christ, the Messiah, which means the Anointed One: God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and He went about doing good and healing all who were in the power of the devil, for God was with Him. (Acts 10:38) An anointing has always been the symbolic, visible representation of an intimately established union, a specific, defined alliance or covenant between God and one of His servants. God the Father speaks at this moment, to make clear who this Person is. The foretold Saviour is His Divine Son, begotten from all eternity: This is My Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
In the symbolism of His baptism, Christ, Himself immaculate, assumes the sins of the world, descends into the purifying waters, and raises mankind to divine sonship. His baptism was vicarious in nature; He stands in the Jordan in our stead. Consequently, this act must find its complement in our personal redemption. Our lives are profoundly altered through Christ's redemptive sacrifice, on at least three such occasions: our Baptism, our attendance at Holy Mass, and our death in Christ.
At our Baptism we were immersed with Jesus, with Him we died and were buried. Then we emerged, and for the first time heaven opened to us, as the Holy Spirit made His advent into our soul, and our Father in heaven looked down upon us, now His sons, His children.
In each Holy Mass, Christ's baptismal offering is again operative. Through the Holy Sacrifice we are immersed in His sacrificial death; heaven then opens and the Holy Spirit descends through Holy Communion. Through the pledge of the sacrificial Banquet the Father assures us of renewed and enriched sonship in Christ.
The baptism of Christ is accomplished within us a third time at our death, if we are united with Him, for death is indeed a sort of baptism. Death is like immersion into the dark depths, but when we receive the Last Sacraments, on emerging, it is to a different life — it is our hope and our confidence, if we have been faithful to God's grace, that it will be the life of glory, the beatific vision. Then we will see the Blessed Trinity, no longer through the darkened sun-glass of faith, but in immediate vision, face to face.
To sum up, today's liturgy helps us to understand more clearly the basic structure of spiritual life, the redemptive acts of Christ. Upon that foundation the edifice rises through the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, while the Lord's return, at our death, brings completion to the work.
Saint Veronica of Milan
Virgin
(1445-1497)
Saint Veronica's parents were peasants of a village near Milan. From her childhood she toiled hard in the house and the field, and accomplished cheerfully every menial task. Gradually the desire for perfection grew within her; she became deaf to the jokes and songs of her companions, and sometimes, when reaping and hoeing, would hide her face and weep. Untaught, she began to be anxious about her lack of instruction, and rose secretly at night to try to learn to read. Our Lady told her that other things were necessary, but not this: My daughter, do not be anxious, it will be sufficient for you to know the three letters that I bring you from heaven. The first is purity of heart, which makes us love God above all things; you must have only one love, that of My Son. The second is not to murmur against the faults of your neighbor, but to support them with patience and pray for the one in question. The third is to meditate every day on the Passion of Jesus Christ, who accepts you for His spouse.
After three years' patient waiting she was received as a lay-sister in the convent of Saint Martha at Milan. The community was extremely poor, and Veronica's duty was to beg throughout the city for their daily food. Three years after receiving the religious habit she was afflicted with constant bodily pains, yet never would consent to be relieved of any of her labors, or to omit one of her prayers. By exact obedience she became a living copy of her rule, and obeyed with a smile the slightest wish of her Superior. She sought until the last the hardest and most humble occupations, and in their performance enjoyed some of the highest favors ever granted to Saints.
By the first letter taught her by Our Lady, Saint Veronica learned to begin her daily duties for no human motive, but for God alone; by the second, to carry out what she had thus begun by attending to her own affairs, never judging her neighbor, but praying for those who manifestly lacked virtue; by the third she was enabled to forget her own pains and sorrows in those of her Lord, and to weep hourly, but silently, over the memory of the wrongs He suffered. She had constant ecstasies, and saw in successive visions the whole life of Jesus, and many other mysteries. Yet, by a special grace, neither her raptures nor her tears ever interrupted her labors, which ended only with death. She died in 1497, on the day she had foretold, after a six months' illness, in the thirtieth year of her religious profession.
|
|
|
|
| December 17th - St. Olympia of Constantinople |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-17-2020, 01:32 AM - Forum: December
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Olympia of Constantinople
Widow and Deaconess
(† 440)
Saint Olympia, the glory of the widows in the Eastern Church, was born of a noble and illustrious family. Left an orphan at a tender age, she was brought up by Theodosia, sister of Saint Amphilochius, a virtuous and prudent woman. At the age of eighteen, Olympias was regarded as a model of Christian virtues. It was then that she was married to Nebridius, a young man worthy of her; the new spouses promised one another to live in perfect continence. After less than two years of this angelic union, Nebridius went to receive in heaven the reward of his virtues.
The Emperor would have engaged her in a second marriage, but she replied: If God had destined me to live in the married state, He would not have taken my first spouse. The event which has broken my bonds shows me the way Providence has traced for me. She had resolved to consecrate her life to prayer and penance, and to devote her fortune to the poor. She liberated all her slaves, who nonetheless wished to continue to serve her, and she administered her fortune as a trustee for the poor. The farthest cities, islands, deserts and poor churches found themselves blessed through her liberality.
Nectarius, Archbishop of Constantinople, had a high esteem for the saintly widow and made her a deaconess of his church. The duties of deaconesses were to prepare the altar linens and instruct the catechumens of their sex; they aided the priests in works of charity, and they made a vow of perpetual chastity. When Saint John Chrysostom succeeded Nectarius, he had for Olympias no less respect than his predecessor, and through her aid he built a hospital for the sick and refuges for the elderly and orphans. When he was exiled in the year 404, he continued to encourage her in her good works by his letters, and she assisted him to ransom some of his fellow captives.
Saint Olympia, as one of his supporters, was persecuted. When she refused to deal with the usurper of the episcopal see, she was mistreated and calumniated, and her goods were sold at a public auction. Finally she, too, was banished with the entire community of nuns which she governed in Constantinople. Her illnesses added to her sufferings, but she never ceased her good works until her death in the year 410. She outlived the exiled Patriarch by about two or three years.
|
|
|
|
| The Communist Infiltration of the Catholic Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-16-2020, 12:54 PM - Forum: Resources Online
- No Replies
|
|
THE GREATEST CONSPIRACY (Communist infiltration of the Church)
Christian Order| November 2000
A few months back, during social chit-chat which turned with predictable concern to the modern plague of clerical apostasy, a venerable member of the Society of Jesus recounted various word of mouth histories of Communist infiltration of the Jesuits. These included two men sent to join the Society in Italy and Spain by their respective national Communist Parties - the former having left to return to the Party in the early 1950s after more than a dozen years of study and actual ordination; the latter leaving the Society before ordination a decade ago. More disturbing still was the case of a prominent Jesuit seminary rector in Rome who, after being run over and killed, was allegedly found to be a member of the KGB. We pondered briefly all the imponderables of such infiltration as well as the domino effect it might have set in train, like: how many students were deformed by the seminary professor down the years; how many others, clerical and lay, they in turn, as priests, had corrupted; how many other seminaries and Orders were similarly infiltrated; and, above all, how many of the infiltrators and their warped progeny had risen to the episcopate.
In recent years this latter quandary in particular has emerged from the realms of much derided "conspiracy theory" to become a plausible contributory explanation for the otherwise inexplicable levels of corruption, negligence and indifference within Western episcopates. The fact that we will never precisely quantify the degree of infiltration and only rarely identify "plants" beyond all doubt, is no reason to ignore the reality. Besides, it's not as if we hadn't been warned. Ex-Communist and celebrated convert Douglas Hyde revealed long ago that in the 1930s the Communist leadership issued a worldwide directive about infiltrating the Catholic Church. While in the early 1950s, Mrs Bella Dodd was also providing detailed explanations of the Communist subversion of the Church. Speaking as a former high ranking official of the American Communist Party, Mrs Dodd said:
"In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within."
The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. A dozen years before Vatican II she stated that: "Right now they are in the highest places in the Church" - where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church's effectiveness against Communism. She also said that these changes would be so drastic that "you will not recognise the Catholic Church."
Mrs Dodd, who converted to the Faith at the end of her life, was personally acquainted with this diabolic project since, as a Communist agent, part of her brief was to encourage young radicals (not always card-carrying Communists) to enter Catholic seminaries. She alone had encouraged nearly 1,000 such youngsters to infiltrate the seminaries and religious orders! One monk who attended a Bella Dodd lecture in the early 1950s recalled:
Quote:"I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent. The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing. Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church…. to label the 'Church of the past' as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an 'openness to the world,' and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church."
This conspiracy has been confirmed time and again by Soviet defectors. Ex-KGB officer Anatoliy Golitsyn, who defected in 1961 and in 1984 forecast with 94% accuracy all the astonishing developments in the Communist Bloc since that time, confirmed several years ago that this "penetration of the Catholic and other churches" is part of the Party's "general line [i.e. unchanged policy] in the struggle against religion." Hundreds of files secreted to the West by former KGB archivist Vassili Mitrokhin and published in 1999 tell a similar tale, about the KGB cultivating the closest possible relationships with 'progressive' Catholics and financing their activities. One of the leftist organs identified was the small Italian Catholic press agency Adista, which for decades has promoted every imaginable postconciliar cause or "reform" and whose Director was named in The Mitrokhin Archive as a paid KGB agent. Interestingly, just prior to the Mitrokhin expose it was little Adista that ultra-Modernist Cardinal Martini utilised to diffuse his dissident rant at the 1999 European Synod, where, among other things, he called for a "new Council".
What is often lost in all of this, however, is that Communism (along with the New Age movement) is simply a chief tool of Freemasonry; it's policy of Church infiltration just an extension of the Masonic plan clearly laid out in the Alta Vendita and other bona fide Masonic documents recognised by the Popes. Even experts like Anatoliy Golitsyn have failed to grasp this point. In The Perestroika Deception (1996), his collection of very accurate analyses and forecasts submitted to the CIA during the period 1985-95, he hints at a controlling force behind Soviet Communism but lacks "the facilities to study how it might be operating" under cover of some "front" organisation. At the same time he complains that despite public plaudits for the accuracy of his forecasts, Western leaders have regularly ignored his warnings. He fails to see that having financed and nurtured Russian Communism from its inception, the elite Freemasons (in symbiotic alliance with transnationalist billionaires who shape world affairs for more prosaic reasons of power and profit) will not always allow a free hand to the likes of Bill Clinton, who himself attributes "a lot of breaks" in his life to his forty year membership of the Masonic Order of De Molay.
There are, of course, logistically implausible and just plain silly conspiracy theories. Yet, as the widespread homosexual infiltration of the postconciliar Church attests, the idea that evil men never seek each other out to work together is sillier still. Moreover, the insistence of liberal propagandists that there is no Masonic conspiracy (aided and abetted by fellow-travellers like themselves) is doubtless the greatest conspiracy of all. As E. Michael Jones explains in his dissection of one such propaganda exercise, by distorting and misrepresenting primary historical sources - like ex-Mason Abbe de Barruel, who wrote in the late eighteenth century that "the object of their [Masonic] conspiracy is to overturn every altar where Christ is adored" - the liberal Establishment seeks to protect and maintain at all costs the nihilistic spirit of the Enlightenment, which Masonic legacy underpins that dissolute and crumbling artifice we call Modernity.
As so many of our Shepherds have themselves bowed to the insidious forces of the Enlightenment and embraced Modernity, it might be said that all these ruminations are now superfluous; that with the secular liberal mindset so entrenched within the Church the whole infiltration/subversion thesis has become purely academic. Nonetheless, Catholics especially should know more about all of this; about how to distinguish Masons-and-Reds-under-the-bed 'conspiracies' from the real thing. And since the bishops are not about to alert them or explain the difference, this edition, though unsettling for some, will fill a gap.
Quote:THE PONTIFFS vs. THE LODGE
"The papal condemnations of Freemasonry are so severe and sweeping in their tenor as to be quite unique in the history of Church legislation. During the last two centuries Freemasonry has been expressly anathematized by at least ten different Popes and condemned directly or indirectly by almost every Pontiff that sat on the Chair of St. Peter."
"The Popes charge the Freemasons with occult criminal activities, with 'shameful deeds', with worshipping satan himself (a charge which is hinted at in some Papal documents), with infamy, blasphemy, sacrilege and the most abominable heresies against the State, with anarchical and revolutionary principles and with favouring and promoting what is now called Bolshevism; with corrupting and perverting the minds of youth; with shameful hypocrisy and lying, by means of which Freemasons strive to hide their wickedness under a cloak of probity and respectability, while in reality they are the very 'synagogue of satan', whose direct aim and object is the complete destruction of Christianity."
Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement (1930), Fr E. Cahill, S.J.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| The Battle of Lepanto by W.T. Walsh - The Angelus 1986 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-16-2020, 12:47 PM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus - October 1986
The Battle of Lepanto
By William Thomas Walsh
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...%3DApi&f=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.WStCrLxGmkwcXpBROIZCZgHaJZ%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
Our Lady of the Rosary
From the very first Don Juan ascribed the triumph of his fleet to the powerful intercession of the Rosary Queen… "It was not generals nor battalions nor arms that brought us victory; it was Our Lady of the Rosary."
In the middle 1500's Christian Europe was an embattled fortress. Riddled by the Protestant Revolt that swept the North and England from the fold of the Church, she faced, almost in despair, yet another threat—the mounting attack of a centuries-old enemy, the Turk.
Like an angry sea not to be denied, the Turkish menace licked and growled at the frontiers. On the eastern flank in 1529, a Moslem army stormed up from prostrate Hungary, to be turned back only at the gates of Vienna. Increasingly, Turkish pirates boldly raided the shores of Spain and Italy, going so far as to sack Ostia, the port of Rome. In 1567, Spanish Moriscos, once subjugated by Ferdinand and Isabella, were in open revolt in the West and calling for a Turkish army to invade Spain. The real threat, however, was the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, an island in the east Mediterranean long held by Venice. In 1570, the Turks barbarously conquered all Cyprus except for the city of Famagosta where the Venetians grimly held on. Cyprus in their hands, the Moslems would sweep the Mediterranean with their powerful fleet, thus exposing southern Europe, especially Italy, to invasion.
It took the faith of a great saint—Pope Saint Pius V—to kindle anew Europe's crusading spirit. The odds seemed hopeless. North and south Europe were split apart; William of Orange in Holland had actually intrigued with the Turks to invade Spain; jealous France held aloof from a common effort with Philip II of Spain. But Pius V refused to believe that the Moslem could not be defeated at sea, or that the Crusader's faith was dead. Early in 1571 he appealed to Philip for help.
Philip, although his armies were at the other end of Europe and his treasury bare, wholeheartedly responded, naming his half-brother, Don Juan, to command the united Papal, Spanish, and Venetian fleets. And so, as a mighty Turkish fleet converged on beleaguered Famagosta in early summer of 1571, the Christian armada grew apace at Messina, readying to strike a great crusader's blow in the historic battle of Lepanto off the west coast of Greece.
"Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?"
The Turkish fleet, about that time, was setting out from Constantinople, with instructions to find and destroy the Christian navies and to complete the conquest of Cyprus. Before Ali Pasha left for the Bosphorus with forty great galleys, four Christian prisoners were crucified, and others skinned alive, as sacrifices to Mohammed for victory. While an army of 70,000 began the siege of Dolcino, on the coast of Albania, the fleet proceeded to Chios (April eighth) where it was joined by forty more vessels under Mohammed-Bey, governor of Negro ponte. A second armada was preparing to follow from Constantinople, and Aluch Ali was cruising from Algiers with twenty more. Before the end of April the Grand Turk had almost 300 heavy warships, with a huge army of crack Janizaries and Spahis on board, on the way to Cyrpus.
On May nineteenth, Mustapha resumed the siege of Famagosta, which had held out heroically for nearly a year under the Venetian, General Bragadino.
Mustapha loosed all his fury upon this city for three months. The Italian women fought in the breaches with their men. The children carried dirt and ammunition. Hunger at last got the better of them, and, in August, Bragadino agreed to surrender, if the Turks would spare their lives. Mustapha agreed; but as soon as the Christians had laid down their arms, he had them tortured and butchered, women and children with the men. The valiant Bragadino was skinned alive. There were other atrocities too horrible to mention. Mustapha went sailing off to range the Mediterranean in quest of the Christian fleet, with the stuffed skin of Bragadino swinging from his yardarm.
It seems incredible that with such dangers hanging over their other eastern possessions, and even their own shores, the Venetians should have haggled over the details of the League treaty for fully two months after the Pope had signed it.
At last, however, the treaty was signed, on May twentieth. The news reached Madrid on the Feast of Corpus Christi, and the nuncio hastened to San Lorenzo, to notify the King. Philip was attending a solemn procession in honor of the Blessed Sacrament. It was a day he had long anticipated, for the monastery portion of the Escorial was finished, and he was formally handing it over to the Jeronymite friars he had chosen as its custodians. He would not grant Castagna an audience until the next day; but he had the Cardinal of Siguenza tell him of his pleasure over the good news, and say that Don Juan would start at once. Philip was waiting for confirmation of the news from his own commissioners. This arrived on the morning of June sixth. He then gave his orders. The Prince left Madrid at three o'clock the same afternoon, reaching Guadalajara, thirty-five miles away, the same night. He was at Barcelona on the fifteenth. Don Juan of Austria was riding to the sea at last.
The Pope was pleased with what he heard of his Generalissimo, and wanted him to come to Rome. King Philip refused to allow this. Pope Pius was compelled, therefore, to send the banner of the Crusade and the Admiral's truncheon, which he blessed, to Naples, where, on August second, an immense crowd gathered to hear Mass, and to see Don Juan seated in a throne on the steps of the high altar in Santa Chiara, a noble figure in steel armor, spangled with gold, his shoulders draped with the decoration of the Golden Fleece, even his hair golden in the soft multicolored light of the old church. After Mass, Cardinal Granvelle, as viceroy of Naples and a Prince of the Church, presented to him the truncheon and the azure banner on which was emblazoned the figure of Christ Crucified, with the arms of the Pope, King Philip, Venice, and Don Juan at His feet.
"Take, O illustrious Prince," said Granvelle, "the insignia of the true Word Made Flesh. Take the living symbol of the holy Faith whose defender you will be in this enterprise. He gives you glorious victory over the impious enemy, and by your hand shall his pride be laid in the dust." "Amen!" A mighty shout like that of Clermont burst from the people. "Amen!"
On August twenty-third, when Don Juan arrived at Messina, the harbor was a cluttered forest of masts, the ancient town swarming with men of all nations. By September first, when the whole fleet was assembled, there were 208 galleys in all, 90 of Spain and her dependencies, 106 of Venice and 12 of the Pope; besides nearly 100 brigantines, frigates, and transports, mostly furnished by Spain; with some 50,000 sailors and galley slaves, and 31,000 soldiers; 19,000 of them paid by King Philip (including Germans and Italians), 8,000 Venetians, 2,000 papal troops, and 2,000 volunteers, chiefly from Spain.
Spanish galleys were by far the best built, best equipped, and best handled, and would bear the brunt of any fighting. The Venetian ships showed up so badly in a review that Don Juan inspected some of them, and found, to his disgust, that they were not even sufficiently manned. Some had hardly any crews. Others lacked fighting men. He distributed among the worst of them about 4,000 of the famous Spanish and Italian infantry. Then he held a Council of War, attended by seventy officers. Some favored a merely defensive campaign, since the Turks evidently outnumbered them, and the risk would be great, especially as the time for autumn tempests was at hand. Others said that if the Turk galleys were more numerous, they were not so efficient; and "something always had to be left to luck." Don Juan himself apparently hesitated, thinking of the King's instructions."
The Papal influence was all in favor of fighting, whatever the odds. The invincible spirit of the old saint in the Vatican was perhaps the decisive factor. When Bishop Odescalchi, his nuncio, came to bless the fleet and to give a large portion of the True Cross for distribution among the crews, each vessel having a grain of the Precious Wood, he also brought to Don Juan the solemn assurance of Pope Pius V that, if he offered battle, God would give him the victory. If they were defeated, the Pope promised "to go to war himself with his gray hairs, to put idle youth to shame." But with courage they could not fail. Had not several revelations, including two prophecies by Saint Isidore of Sevilla, described such a battle and victory as seemed imminent, won by a youth closely resembling Don Juan?
At the Holy Father's suggestion, Don Juan adopted a modus operandi seldom if ever taught in naval academies. No women were allowed aboard the ships. Blasphemy was to be punished with death. While waiting for a good wind and the return of his scouting squadron with news of where the Turks were, the Generalissimo fasted for three days. All his officers and crews did likewise. Contemporary accounts agree that not one of the 1,000 sailors and soldiers failed to confess and to receive Holy Communion. Even the galley slaves were unshackled from their long benches and led in droves ashore, to confess to the numerous priests who toiled day and night at the Jesuit College helping chaplains of the galley.
When the last of the Venetians had arrived, the Armada began to put to sea, September fifteenth, in the order agreed upon. Doria led the vanguard with 54 galleys of the right wing, flying green banners. Don Juan followed next morning with the batalla or center, under azure banners, with the blue standard of Our Lady of Guadalupe over the Real. (The Pope's Standard of the League was reserved for battle.) Marcantonio Colonna, on the flagship of the Pope, was on his right, Veniero, a cantankerous old Venetian sea-dog, at his left. The third squadron of the Venetian Barbarigo followed, with yellow banners: and the Marques of Santa Cruz (Don Alvaro de Bazan) brought up the rear with thirty Spanish galleys and some of Italy, all under white flags.
It was a sight to remember—the papal nuncio, a flaming figure in scarlet from head to foot, standing on the mole with hand uplifted to bless each ship as it passed, the crusaders kneeling on the decks, the knights and men-at-arms glittering with steel, the sailors in red suits and caps, the rowers with dark naked backs glistening with sweat, the brown sails bellying out to catch the first breeze; and on the lofty prow of the flagship, Don Juan in golden armor, like an avenging angel under the out flung blue banner of her who had trodden on the serpent's head. Thus they passed into the open Mediterranean and formed in ranks, two by two. The six great Venetian galeasses, each a bristling fort with 44 heavy guns, led the way into the sapphire studded morning light. The galeasses kept a full mile ahead, to open the fray with a heavy bombardment. Two by two the whole Armada followed, almost in battle order, according to a plan carefully worked out by old paralyzed Don Garcia de Toledo. The plan was somewhat modified, apparently, to leave spaces between the squadrons, so that Santa Cruz could intervene where his help might be needed.
Don Juan left Corfu on September twenty-eighth. While the Turkish fleet was skirting the southern shore of Aetolia, making for the Gulf of Corinth (or Lepanto) the Christian Armada, using oars because the wind was contrary, nosed through the waters of the Ionian Sea, with the Albanian shore off the port bows, past Nicopolis and that stretch of sea lying off Actium where the spirit of the East had fled from the spirit of the West in the jaded galleys of Antony and Cleopatra, and around the coast of Santa Maura to Cephalonia, with the narrow isle of Ithaca hugged under its lee shore, still fragrant with the memory of Penelope and the unconquerable fortitude of Odysseus.
It was October fifth when the fleet cast anchor among the Curzolares. That day a brigantine from Candia came by with news of the fall of Famagosta, and the horrible atrocities perpetrated by Mustapha upon the helpless Christians who had surrendered. A quiver of rage passed through the floating city of armed men. Nothing could have been better timed to make them fight like holy madmen.
The wind was east, the sky overcast, the sea gray with fog. All day Saturday and well into the night, the fleet remained inactive, not knowing that the wind which kept them there had brought the Turkish fleet across the Gulf of Patras to the Albanian shore, and that Aluch Ali, with all his Algerian galleys, was still with them. With the falling of the starless night a dead silence settled over the sea.
About two o'clock in the morning of Sunday, the seventh, there came up a fresh steady wind from the west, across the Ionian Sea, sweeping the stars and the wide bay clear of the wraiths of fog. Don Juan, lying sleepless in the cabin of his Real, saw that he was in the middle of what seemed a huge lake, flooded with moonlight. He gave the word, the great anchors were weighed and the sails unfurled, the whips cracked over the straining backs of the galley slaves, the great ships hove through the choppy waters, as if racing the dawn to the Albanian coast. When the sun came flaming up over the Gulf of Lepanto, Doria's lookout, in the vanguard, sighted a squadron of the enemy about twelve miles away, returning from a scouting trip to Santa Maura. The signal flag agreed upon was on the masthead of the royal frigate, where Doria was on watch.
"We must conquer or die here," said Don Juan, exultantly, and ordered a green banner displayed as a sign for all to get in battle array. The multiple banks of oars on the six great Venetian galeasses plunged into the sea, driving the massive hulks to their positions, two of them a mile in front of each of the three sections of the battle line.
The Venetian Barbarigo, with sixty-four galleys, veered as closely as possible to the Aetolian shore, to prevent an encircling movement by the enemy on the north. Don Juan commanded the center or batalla of sixty-three galleys, with Colonna and Veniero on either side of him, and Requesens in the ship behind him. Doria's squadron of sixty took the right wing, nearest the open sea, the most dangerous post of all. Thirty-five vessels were held in reserve in the rear under the Marques of Santa Cruz, with orders to give help wherever it might be needed. Thus the great fleet advanced into the Gulf of Patras, in a long arc extending over a league-and-a-half sea and gradually stiffening into a straighter line as the enemy came in sight.
The Turks, having a total of 286 galleys (for Hascen Bey had just arrived with 22 extra ones from Tripoli) against 208, had decided to fight, and were clearing their decks for action. Mohammed Siroco with 55 galleys opposed Barbarigo. Ali Pasha and Pertew with 96 faced the batalla of Don Juan. Aluch Ali with 73 took the side nearest the open sea, opposite Gianandrea Doria. There was also a squadron of reserve in the rear. The wind had shifted to the east, bringing on the Turks with bellied sails, while the Christians had to use their oars. Toward noon it almost died away. Four hours passed while both fleets made their preparations for combat.
Doria meanwhile came back in a swift frigate to consult with Don Juan and the others. According to one account he was averse, at the start, to giving battle to an enemy with so large a preponderance of heavy ships. He wanted a council of war, at least. But Don Juan cried, "It is time to fight now, not to talk"; and so it was agreed. Cabrera says Doria not only drew up the final battle order of the fleet, but suggested that the Generalissimo have the espolones cut away from the bows of his galleys. These were sharp spurs, fourteen feet long which could crash through the side of an enemy ship, doing great damage when propelled by the arms of a hundred galley slaves. It was obvious that in fighting at close quarters, hand-to-hand, ship locked to ship, they would be useless. Without them, too, Don Juan could place his bow guns lower, and hit the Turkish hulks nearer the water line. The plan was adopted. One after another down the long line the espolones splashed into the calm sea.
The young Admiral, now in his golden armor, went in a fast frigate from ship to ship, holding up an iron crucifix for all to see. "Hey, valorous soldiers!" he cried. "Here's the chance you wanted. I have done my part. Do you now humble the pride of the enemy and win glory in this holy fight. Live or die, be conquerors; if you die, you go to Heaven." The sight of the gallant young figure and the sound of his fresh voice had an extraordinary effect. A mighty shout answered him from each ship. There passed across the sparkling sea a long broken cheer as the Pope's banner of the League with the image of Christ Crucified catching the glint of the high sun, rose above the Real beside the blue flag of Our Lady of Guadalupe. On the forward mast of his flagship Don Juan had hung a crucifix which alone of all his effects survived the fire in his house at Alcala.
As the Turks advanced in a great half-moon he knelt on the prow and in a loud voice begged the blessing of God on the Christian arms, while priests and monks throughout the fleet held up crucifixes before the kneeling sailors and soldiers. The sun was now directly overhead. The clear water, almost unrippled, flashed back a tremulous replica in vivid colors of a thousand standards, streamers, pennons and gonfalons, the cold brilliant glitter of weapons and armor, the gold and silver of armaments, all wavering kaleidoscopically between the blue sea and the dazzling sky. A hush like that which comes just before the consecration of the Mass fell over the whole Armada. The Turkish side replied with the usual blood-curdling chorus of screams, hoots, jibes and groans, the clashing of cimeters on shields, the blaring of horns and trumpets. The Christians waited in silence.
At that moment the wind, which had thus far favored the Turks, shifted to the west and sped the Christian galleys on to the shock. Ali Pasha, in the Moslem center, opened the battle with a cannon shot. Don Juan answered, with another. As the Turkish oarsmen churned the sea, the six great galeasses of Venice opened fire with their 264 guns. This bombardment was not as devastating as had been expected, but it had the effect of breaking the enemy's line. The Turkish right was racing now to gain the open water between the Venetians and the Aetolian shore. Five ships closed upon the galley of Barbarigo, while the Moorish archers let fly clouds of poisoned arrows, which they preferred to firearms and used with more deadly effect. Ship to ship they were lashed now, fighting hand-to-hand. Huge Barbarigo fought like a lion, until, taking his shield from his face to shout an order, he was pierced through the eye with an arrow.
It was the Christian right that stood the heaviest attack. Doria was held in fear and respect by the Moslems. Moreover, he occupied the most dangerous post, where strategy and good sailing counted. If there was a match for him among the mariners of the Mediterranean, it was Aluch Ali, the Italian apostate. As the Turkish left tried to gain the open sea, to attack by poop and prow, Doria extended his line farther to the right, leaving a space between his squadron and the batalla. Aluch Ali swiftly changed his course and came crashing through the open space with his best ships, while his slower sailing galleys took the Genoese on the side toward the open sea. Doria, heavily outnumbered, fought a magnificent engagement. On ten of his vessels, nearly all the soldiers were killed in the first hour of the conflict. The handful of of survivors fought on, desperately holding their ships in the hope of succor.
Santa Cruz's reserve, however, had gone to the aid of some of the Venetians on the left, and the whole batalla was locked in mortal conflict with the Turkish center. As soon as Ali Pasha saw where the holy flags flew over the galley of Don Juan, he drove straight for it. The two enormous hulks crashed prow to prow. Ali's ship was higher and heavier, and manned with 500 picked Janizaries.
The wisdom of Doria's advice to cut away the espolones was now apparent; while the Turk's artillery fired through the rigging of the Real, Don Juan's poured death into the ranks of the Janizaries as the ships grappled. Hand-to-hand they fought from one deck to the other, for two hours. Seven Turkish ships stood by to help the Sultana. As fast as the Janizaries fell on the decks, they were replaced by others from the hulks of reserve. Twice the horde of yelling Turks penetrated the Real to the main mast, and twice the Spaniards thrust them back. But Don Juan, with heavy losses, had only two ships of reserves. Fighting gallantly in a little ring of chosen Spanish cavaliers, he was wounded in the foot. His situation was extremely perilous, in fact, when Santa Cruz, having saved the Venetians, came to his aid and rushed 200 reserves aboard.
Heartened by this fresh blood, the Spanish threw themselves on Ali and his Janizaries so furiously that they hurled them back into their own ship. Three times the Christians charged, and three times the Turks cast them out over decks now red and slippery with blood, piled with heaps of dead men, ghastly mangled trunks, severed arms and legs still quivering. The two fleets were locked in the embrace of death, ships lashed by twos and threes in water already streaked with crimson from floating bodies and limbs. The din of musketry, screams of rage and pain, clash of steel on steel, thunder of artillery, falling of spars and lashing of bloody waters between rocking timbers resounded horribly all through the Sunday afternoon. Splendid and terrible deeds were done. Old Veniero, seventy years old, fought sword in hand at the head of his men. Cervantes arose from his bed of fever to fight and to lose his left hand. Young Alexander of Parma boarded a Turkish galley alone, and survived the experience. The moment was critical, and the issue still in doubt, when the magnificent Ali Pasha, defending his ship from the last Christian onslaught, was laid low by a ball from a Spanish arquebus. His body was dragged to the feet of Don Juan. A Spanish soldier triumphantly pounced upon it and shore away the head. One version says that Don Juan reproved him for this brutality. Another, more likely, says that the Prince impaled the head on the end of a long pike and held it up for all to see. Hoarse shouts of victory burst from the Christians on the Real, as they brushed the disheartened Turks into the sea and hoisted the banner of Christ Crucified to the enemy masthead. There was not a single hole in this flag, though the spars and masts were riddled, and the mainmast bristled with arrows like a porcupine. From ship to ship the shout of triumph was taken up, with the word that Ali was dead and the Christians had won. A panic seized the enemy, and he took to flight.
As the sun sank over Cephalonia, Doria's right wing was still furiously engaged with the Algerians. Gianandrea was red from head to foot with blood, but escaped without a scratch. When Aluch Ali saw that the Moslem fleet was getting the worse of it, he skillfully withdrew between the right and the center of the Christians. In the rear of Doria's fleet he came upon a galley of the Knights of Malta, whom he especially hated. He pounced upon it from the stern, slew all the knights and the crew, and took possession of the vessel; but when Santa Cruz attacked him, he abandoned his prize and fled with 40 of his best ships toward the open sea and the crimson sunset. Doria's fleet pursued him until night and the coming of a storm forced him to desist.
The Christians took refuge in the port of Petala, and there counted their casualties, which were comparatively light, and their booty, which was exceedingly rich. They had lost 8,000 slain, including 2,000 Spanish, 800 of the Pope's men, and 5,200 Venetians. The Turks had lost 224 vessels, 130 captured and more than 90 sunk or burned; at least 25,000 of their men had been slain, and 5,000 captured; 10,000 of their Christian captives were set free.
Don Juan at once sent ten galleys to Spain to inform the King, and dispatched the Count of Priego to Rome. But Pius V had speedier means of communication than galleys. On the afternoon of Sunday, October seventh, he was walking in the Vatican with his treasurer, Donata Cesis. The evening before he had sent out orders to all convents in Rome and nearby to double their prayers for the Victory of the Christian fleet, but now he was listening to a recital of some of his financial difficulties. Suddenly he stepped aside, opened a window, and stood watching the sky as if astonished. Then, turning with a radiant face to the treasurer, he said, "Go with God. This is not the time for business, but to give thanks to Jesus Christ, for our fleet has just conquered."
He then hurried to his chapel to prostrate himself in thanksgiving. Afterwards he went out, and everybody noticed his youthful step and joyous countenance.
The first news of the battle, through human agencies, reached Rome by way of Venice on the night of October twenty-first, just two weeks after the event. Saint Pius went to St. Peter's in a procession, singing the Te Deum Laudamus. There was great joy in Rome. The Holy Father commemorated the victory by designating October seventh as the Feast of the Holy Rosary, and by adding "Help of Christians" to the titles of Our Lady in the Litany of Loreto.
From the very first Don Juan ascribed the triumph of his fleet to the powerful intercession of the Rosary Queen. The Venetian Senate wrote to the other States which had taken part in the Crusade: "It was not generals nor battalions nor arms that brought us victory; but it was Our Lady of the Rosary."
[/align]
|
|
|
|
| The Infamous WEF Forum Wants Government, Banks, Big Business to Help ‘Vaccinate the World’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-16-2020, 11:45 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
World Economic Forum Wants Government, Central Banks, Big Business to Help ‘Vaccinate the World’
Breitbart |16 Dec 20200
The World Economic Forum (WEF) believes a management triumvirate comprising big business, central banks and government can play a “pivitol role” in the global take-up of coronavirus vaccinations.
A WEF report published Tuesday points to the personal records held by big businesses as an asset in identifying those who need the vaccinations, underwritten by banking institutions and globalist organizations like the U.N.-subsidiary World Health Organization providing “tracing apps and digital health passports.”
“Workplace norms and employers that encourage pandemic-time discipline, even after the vaccination programs kickoff, will play a pivotal role in driving continued positive outcomes,” the report posits.
The WEF call came just hours after the Catholic church argued such a vaccine program should not be feared or countered – rather, treated as a natural course of global events. [See here - The Catacombs]
"Being vaccinated safely against COVID-19 should be considered an act of love of our neighbor and part of our moral responsibility for the common good.” https://t.co/9YFjGGc4pl
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) December 15, 2020
The WEF paper goes on to say relying on employers is a natural solution, “Given that this is adult vaccination at a scale which we have not done ever before, it is only natural that the workplace will emerge as one of the key hubs for evangelizing and expanding vaccination cover.”
It then points to what it believes the combination of tech, big government, and globalist organizations can achieve:
Quote:Governments, central banks and organizations like W.H.O. are hugely supported by enterprises joining the good fight. Public-private partnerships, adopting the ‘all hands-on deck’ approach, have served us tremendously well even as corporations fight their own battle to protect employees, redeploy capabilities to help new pressing needs, steady cashflows and keep the economy running.
From contact tracing apps, digital health passports, technology for safer public spaces, vaccine discovery, logistics capabilities for vaccine distribution to massive philanthropic funding for community support, enterprises are truly partnering nations struggling to tide things over through these trying times.
The WEF urges big businesses to play their part, saying “employment records can serve as a rich source of demographic data – age, ethnicity and occupation, for example – to continue to support equitable vaccination coverage.”
Whether or not there is ever a total acceptance of the vaccine is a problem even the World Economic Forum admits to.
The report concludes “public hesitancy towards vaccination, brought on by a fear of side-effects, is rampant.
“In a June 2020 survey, conducted by the World Economic Forum’s COVID Action Platform, only 71.5% of participants reported that they would be very or somewhat likely to take a COVID-19 vaccine.”
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: May 1988 - 'Summary of the Situation' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-16-2020, 10:10 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Summary of the Situation
May 30, 1988
Here is the account of the situation written by the hand of Archbishop Lefebvre, which he gave to the superiors of traditional communities and to some priests with whom he met at the Society’s retreat house of Le Pointet, France. Present were Benedictine monks and nuns (including Dom Gérard), Dominican monks and nuns, Franciscan monks and nuns, Carmelite nuns, Fr. Coache, Fr. André, Fr. Lecareu....
Explanation of the Situation Concerning What Rome Calls “Reconciliation”
- Fifteen years of opposition to the doctrinal deviations of the Council and the reforms issuing from this conciliar spirit, to remain faithful to the Faith and the sources of edifying grace.
- To abide in this fidelity we undergo the persecution of Rome and conferences of bishops, and religious congregations.
- Being involved in the same struggle, we have helped each other to consolidate and develop the works which Providence has put in our hands and which it has visibly blessed.
- Providence has permitted us to have a bishop, thanks to which we have had the grace of ordinations and confirmations, an indispensable aid to our fidelity.
- Fifteen years of traditional ecclesial life, 15 years of blessings, of life with the Eucharistic Sacrifice, prayers, reception of valid and fruitful sacraments, a bishop, priests, brothers, nuns, Christian families united in the Faith. Fervor, generosity, full spiritual and material growth in the midst of trials, crosses, scorn...etc.
- The bishop formed the moral bond and even the ecclesial bond with the present Modernist Rome.#
- It must be recognized that the efforts to correct the spirit and reforms of the Council were in vain, as well as requests to officially authorize the “experiment of Tradition.”
However, a vital problem is posed for fidelity to Tradition with the disappearance of the bishop. As Rome refuses to agree to the permanence of Tradition, the necessity of the salvation of souls becomes the (supreme) law.
On June 29, 1987, the decision to create some bishops to ensure the episcopal succession is announced.
On July 14, 1987, a final request is made of Rome, both by letter and in person.
On July 28, 1987, a serious hope of a solution appears. Rome seems frightened by the threat of episcopal consecrations.
The response does not reject the idea of an episcopal succession, but after legal recognition of the Society, the liturgy, the traditional seminaries are authorized. They no longer speak of a doctrinal document. They will return to that. An Apostolic Visitor is envisaged. What would we do?
- The visit of Cardinal Gagnon is decided on and takes place from November 11 to December 9.
- The report is given to the Pope on January 5.
- A Commission is proposed on March 18.
- A Commission of experts meets April 13-15. Signature of a proposal takes place on April 15.
- Meeting of the Commission of experts, Archbishop Lefebvre and the Cardinal, May 3 and 4. Signing of the Protocol, May 5, Feast of St. Pius V.
Procedure for putting into application. Question of the date of the consecration?Put off sine die (indefinitely). Letter of His Grace to the Pope of May 5, 1988.
The difficulties of putting into application begin:- Letter of May 6 to the Cardinal. Threat to proceed with the consecrations on June 30.
- Response of the Cardinal on May 6.
- Project of the letter to the Pope asking pardon, the letter of May 5 being too administrative (brought by Fr. du Chalard).
- Fr. du Chalard confirms to the Cardinal that I intend to consecrate on June 30. The Cardinal asks that I come to Rome.
- Letter to the Pope and letter to the Cardinal on the subject of the date and number of bishops and membership of the Roman Commission, May 20 and May 24.
- Meeting with the Cardinal and the secretaries on May 24.
- The letters are delivered. Then the Cardinal mentions August 15 as the date for the consecration, but does not respond to the other problems. As for the secretaries, they allude to the other problems by saying that the requests can be looked into! The Cardinal gives me another project of a letter to the Pope.
- On May 28, the Pope confirms the date of August 15.
The atmosphere of these contacts and talks, the reflections of both sides during the conversations, clearly manifests to us that the desire of the Holy See is to bring us back to the Council and to the reforms, also to place us back into the bosom of the Conciliar Church as a religious congregation:
- The Bureau at Rome will be provisional. (Special note)
- The Bishop is not necessary, and grudgingly conceded. Delays!
- The Catholic Church is the Church of Vatican Council II.
- Acceptance of the conciliar novelties. St. Nicolas! (Cardinal Ratzinger had asked for the celebration of a Mass of Paul VI each Sunday at St. Nicolas, in Paris.)
- The religious congregations are to be returned to their respective orders, with a special statute!
- We are given a doctrinal note to be signed.
- Again we are expected to ask pardon for our faults.
Our reintegration seems to be a political, diplomatic “trump card” to offset the excesses of others.
This poses the following moral problem, in which I do not feel entitled to act without your counsel, since you are directly concerned. (Recall of Fr. Schmidberger from America.)
We must realize that a new situation will appear after the application of the accord.
Let us state the advantages:- Canonical normalization of our works. Renewal of relations with Rome for each one of our works.
- At the same time we retain a certain independence, for the safeguarding of Tradition,
- through the Liturgy.
- through the formation of our members and the faithful.
- by relations with the bishops, and the conciliar world.
- suppression of apprehensions and reticences (to a certain extent).
- facilitation of relations with certain civil administrations.
- easier missionary contacts to convert priests and faithful to Tradition!
- a flow of vocations and the faithful to our works.
- a bishop consecrated with the approval of the Holy See.
Let us state the disadvantages:- a limited but definite dependence on Modernist and Conciliar Rome through the Roman Commission directed by Cardinal Ratzinger.
its principles are the same ones which alienated us from modern Rome.
- disassociation of our moral unity created around my person, which disappears, partly in favor of Cardinal Ratzinger, and partly in favor of the different superiors general who report directly to Rome, but who can continue to have recourse to the bishop consecrated for Tradition. We risk having less unity and less strength.
- Relations with the congregations and orders. They are to have a special statute, but in spite of everything a moral dependence, which Rome would like to see transformed as early as possible into a canonical dependence. Danger of contamination.
- Relations with the Conciliar bishops, faithful and clergy. In spite of the broad exemption, as the canonical barriers disappear, there will necessarily be courtesy contacts and perhaps offers of cooperation, for the student unions—superiors’ unions—priests’ meetings— regional ceremonies, etc...This whole world of the Conciliar spirit— ecumenical and charismatic.
- Only one bishop. Less protection, more danger.
Up until now we were naturally protected, the selection was assured by the necessity of a rupture with the conciliar world. From now on, continual caution is necessary, to keep us always on guard against the atmosphere in Rome, against the atmosphere in the dioceses.
This is why we want three or four bishops and the majority in the Roman Commission, but they turn a deaf ear. They have agreed to only one bishop, after continual threats, and delayed the date. They consider it inconceivable that we treat them as a contaminated atmosphere, after all they are granting us.
Thus, a moral problem is posed for all of us.
- Must we run the risk of contacts with this modernist atmosphere in the hope of converting some souls, and with the hope of fortifying ourselves beforehand with the grace of God and the virtue of prudence, and thus remain legally united to Rome according to the letter, as we are in reality and in spirit?
- Or must we, before all else, preserve the traditional family to maintain its cohesion and vigor in the Faith and in grace, considering that the purely formal tie with modernist Rome cannot be as important as the protection of this family, representing those who remain faithful to the Catholic Church?
- What do God and the Holy Trinity, and Our Lady of Fatima ask of us in response to this question?
It is clear that four bishops will fortify us better than just one. The decision must be taken within 48 hours.
Reflect. Pray. Please give me your opinion, even in writing if you wish, and it will be my duty, with the help of the Holy Ghost, and Our Lady the Queen, to make a decision.
Msgr. de Castro Mayer has promised to come June 30, for the episcopal consecrations, with three priests of his diocese.
# i.e., Rome occupied by modernists.
Source
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1979 Conference - On His Recent Audience with Pope John Paul II |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-16-2020, 10:06 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
Conference given by His Excellency Mgr. Lefebvre to the Seminarians at Ecône regarding his recent Audience with Pope John Paul II
21 December 1978
My dear friends,
I hope there is no representative of the press among you! Somebody in disguise! In any case, I ask you to be discreet and not, after this evening, to be running to the telephone to spread what I shall be saying about the audience. The business is not yet ended, and talks are in progress; there will be further meetings, not perhaps with the Holy Father himself but probably with Cardinal Seper, so what has been begun must not be hampered. This is a new stage in our relations with Rome, with a Rome somewhat changed, not the old Rome with which we had no difficulty.
Cardinal Siri’s Mediation
The Holy Father was informed that I was in Rome by Cardinal Siri whom I had gone to visit on my arrival in Rome. Cardinal Siri wanted to intervene so that I should have this audience. I did not myself ask Cardinal Siri for the audience – I was thinking of having it later, as it was still too soon and it would be better to wait until the Pope had been informed and events would show what line the Pope would take, what he was thinking. But as soon as I met Cardinal Siri he said: “Fine! Next week I have an audience with the Pope, and if you like I'll talk to him about it. We'll certainly discuss it."
He did have an audience the next week, on the Monday. I had visited him on Friday and on the following Monday he had his audience (he hadn't told me the day: it could have been Thursday, Friday). That Monday evening he told me, saying: "Good. It is arranged. The Holy Father will receive you on Saturday at 4:30 in his private apartments"- on Saturday, for, as the Pope had said to him, he wanted the meeting to be on Our Lady's day so that it would be under her patronage. I was to get in touch with one of his friends who would bring me to the Holy Father's private apartments – as it was not an official audience it could not take place in the offices where the Pope is accustomed to receive those who have an audience with him.
I have often been to see the Popes, one after another, Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI – but always in the official places, never in the private apartments. So I thought it better to keep out of sight for a day or two so as to avoid being eventually interrogated by people in the Vatican, who always know everything. It is difficult, I said to myself: I don't know how I can get to the Vatican without the news being in the press beforehand. Monday to Saturday evening! It would be a miracle if nothing appeared in the press. And, if it did get in, would I have the audience?
Arrival at the Vatican
Saturday afternoon, 18 November 1978
However, things were so well arranged that nobody knew. I started on Saturday afternoon in Monsieur Pedroni’s car. He drove me to the little Holy Office Square where the entrance to the Vatican now is. There we were joined by the car of the secretary appointed by Cardinal Siri, and I went off in that car, so that no one should see a car with a Swiss – still less a Valais! – registration, especially as no one comes to the Vatican on Saturday afternoons: they are all away on holiday. But the Swiss Guards saw me change from one car to another. And it seems, though I did not notice it myself, that when Monsieur Pedroni and the Abbé du Chalard stayed on in the Holy Office Square, and were strolling under the colonnade of St. Peter's waiting for me to return from the audience, they were spotted by a young man who was already there, and who waited as they did, smiling from time to time. They both said: "That is surely someone in the know. He saw Monseigneur leave and is waiting for him to come back. He is certainly up to something!" And that is just what happened. As soon as I got back he rushed to the telephone to pass on his news, so that the same evening on the radio and the next the Italian newspapers the news was out.
In the Pope’s Private Apartments
When we got to the Court of Saint Damasus, there was nobody there except a Swiss Guard. Mgr. Magee, an Irishman, who had been secretary to Pope Paul VI, came down as soon as he saw the car and led me to a private life which goes up directly to the Holy Father’s private apartments. That made things easier. I did not know of that lift, and I should have taken the official lift up to the third floor – I knew where it was. So we reached the private apartments, and the secretary took me for a short visit up to the Chapel, a Chapel which is completely standard, not in the modern but totally in the old style – a fine simple altar, altar screen, candlesticks, the Cross, tabernacle; a nun dressed as a nun was praying before the Blessed Sacrament. I genuflected, stayed there for a few moments, and left. I was led then into a salon where there was a round table and seven or eight armchairs, all alike. I asked myself: “Where is the Holy Father going to sit?” I could not say. Was I be led into another salon, nearby? I stayed where I was, and the secretary said: “The Holy Father will be coming.”
A Warm Welcome
And so it was. Scarcely had he closed the door when the Holy Father arrived and embraced me warmly. I confess that it occurred to me that he had done the same with the communist mayor a few days before! However, ecumenism is the current practice! So he gave me a friendly embrace, sat at my side, and, very simple, without ceremony, he got straight into the conservation: “I am glad to see you. I know one of your good friends, Cardinal Thiandoum. I had met him before, but he came specially to talk to about you.” So we spoke of Dakar and such-like subjects. I said that I had ordained him priest. The Pope asked: “Did you also consecrate him?”
I replied: "No, I did not consecrate him as I had already left, but it was he who succeeded me: it was the Apostolic Delegate, my successor, who consecrated him."
"Ah," he replied, "so you have been an Apostolic Delegate?"
"Yes, indeed. I was Apostolic Delegate for eleven years."
"So, then, you must have been engaged in diplomacy.
"Oh, ever so little, ever so little."
Though by his office an Apostolic Delegate is not a diplomat, he is nonetheless the delegate of the Holy Father and the French government agreed to give him all the honors of a Nuncio, which made him the diplomatic representative of the Holy Father.
The Archbishop Explains the Seminary
We chatted like that for a while. Then: "But we had better get down to business."
"Yes, Holy Father. If you wish I will tell you briefly the position of the Fraternity, how it began, etc."
I gave him the story that you know already, from Fribourg with Mgr. Charriere, the decree of erection, the canonical existence of the Fraternity for five years, perfectly legal in its foundation; the seminary authorized by Mgr. Adam; the Albano House authorized by Mgr. Mamie (though he is not very favorable, as I told the Pope) and by Mgr. Maccario.1
The Pope interjected: "So your Albano House is quite legal?"
And I replied: "Yes." Someone must have told him it was a wildcat house!
The Plan for the Suppression of the Fraternity
“The French Bishops then became jealous of this seminary which was growing fast." And I quoted to him what Cardinal Lefebvre (whom I knew well: he is my cousin) had written and had printed: that there could be no pardoning Mgr. Lefebvre for taking up, at the Council, positions contrary to those of the French Bishops. I said: "You can see what the French episcopate already thought of me. Obviously, seeing this growing seminary and the prospect of its training priests as they could not do themselves, they were disturbed. So they entered into a veritable conspiracy, with Cardinal Villot and Cardinal Garrone, and later with Cardinal Wright and Cardinal Tabera: they decided to pretend to have an official investigation. They sent two Apostolic Visitors2 who did not even visit the Chapel, and who left no word behind them, no report. I do not know what the conclusions were from their visit, but what they said was scandalous. I myself said to them: “I know very well why you are here – to condemn and to suppress this seminary. That means so many fewer priests, although the whole world is short of them and here in France the number of seminarists is going down rapidly. Why come to this seminary? What shall we do when there are no more priests?' To which they both replied at once: 'Oh, we’ll ordain married men!' They were from Rome, and that, you will agree, was a bit too much!"
He listened, with great attention. I went on: "The meeting which I had with the Cardinals just for information was not a tribunal! Cardinal Garrone himself said so: it was merely an interview in which explanations could be given to supplement the (Apostolic) visitation of 11 November 1974.3 Yet, a few weeks later came the condemnations, totally illegal, for it was Mgr. Mamie who withdrew the canonical institution, which he had no right to do: when a bishop has accepted a Congregation in his diocese he cannot suppress it: Rome has to issue a decree of suppression, not the bishop of the place (Canon 493). When that happened I went back to Rome, to the Signatura Apostolica, where Cardinal Staffa received my protest. I even paid the fee due for its reception; and, together with my lawyer and Cardinal Staffa 's delegate, we signed the protocol of the reception of my complaint at the Signatura. But a few days later Cardinal Villot wrote a letter in his own hand forbidding the examination of my case and an investigation into whether I was right or not."
I said then to the Holy Father: "I don't know if the communists can improve on that!" He laughed. "Faced with that contempt for natural rights, good sense and canon law, it seemed to me that I was not obliged to submit to such a measure. That is why I kept the seminary going. Obviously that has made our relations with Rome delicate; but I hope the priests trained in the Fraternity are good priests, devoted to Rome."
The Same Old Accusation: You are Against the Pope: NO!
"Now what, precisely, are we accused of? Since this difficulty with Rome we are accused of being 'against the Pope, against the Council, and against the reforms, especially the liturgical reform.' Listen: we are not at all against the Pope – that is absolutely false! We were calumniated on those points to Pope Paul VI, and that is why it was made so difficult for us to see him, and why he was so hard on us. He was made to believe that I got the seminarians to take an oath against the Pope. He accused me of that in my audience with him. That is too bad! I can understand why they did not want me to go near the Pope – they had told him such serious calumnies." I added: "It was not through Cardinal Villot that I saw the Pope. It happened quite unexpectedly. A Father LaBellarte, whom I did not know, said to me one day: 'Go to Rome and see the Pope. He wants to see you.' I replied: “I shall not see the Pope. They have always prevented me from seeing him. I’ve been waiting for five years to see him, and they have refused me every time.’ ‘Oh, yes, you'll see him.' In fact, I saw Pope Paul VI, but against the will of Cardinal Villot who, the evening before, learning that I was to have the audience, forced the Pope to have Mgr. Benelli present at our audience.”4
I could tell that he was listening to me with great attention and interest. I told him again: "We pray for the Pope. We are perhaps one of the few seminaries which still pray for the Pope. At Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament we sing the prayer for the Pope, in the Canon of the Mass we name the Pope. The Albano House was founded precisely for the acquisition of romanita,5 to attach us to Rome, to the successor of Peter to all that is represented by Rome and the Roman Church.”
It was then that he asked me: "How many seminarians have you?”
“One hundred and seventy."
“Ah, one hundred and seventy!"
“Yes, there are thirty at Albano, ninety at Ecône, and the rest at our two other seminaries in the U.S.A. and Germany."
You are Against the Council! No!
I continued: “As to the Council, there are certainly things in the Council which are hard to admit; but I should be ready to sign a sentence like this: 'I accept the Acts of the Council interpreted in the sense of tradition.' That is a sentence which I think I could eventually accept and sign, if you so wish.”
“But that is fine, fine! But that is ordinary and obvious! Would you really agree to sign such a sentence?"
I replied: "Certainly, I am ready to sign it, provided it contains the phrase 'interpreted in the sense of tradition'."
He said again: "But that is just ordinary," He seemed to be thinking that that settled the business of the Pope and the business of the Council, Both questions were settled, so now what about the question of the Liturgy?
The Liturgical Reform…in Poland!
I said, "Oh, yes. The question of the liturgy…We are evidently very attached to the Mass of Saint Pius V and also to the traditional rites. All around us we see these reforms and their consequences: the destruction of churches, the closing of seminaries, the lack of respect for the Blessed Sacrament."
At that point, of course, and without a pause, as though his mind were still in Poland, he said to me: "But, you know, in Poland it is all going very well! The reforms have been effected, but I assure you there is plenty of respect for the Blessed Sacrament. Besides, we have had lots of difficulties with the communists. Our people are very respectful to the Blessed Sacrament, and are very devout. We fight for devotion to the Holy Eucharist, processions, any show of devotion: we fight. And what has caused us most pain, let me tell you, and made us suffer, is the suppression of Latin. I myself think that it was most painful for us. But now! What do you want to do? The seminarians no longer know Latin; they all read the breviary in the vernacular; Latin is not taught any- where; what do you want to do? What do you want us to do? Besides, perhaps the people understand the Mass better, what is said at Mass."
I then permitted myself to say: " Are you not afraid, all the same, that because of those reforms a certain Protestant and neo-modemist spirit will in the end creep slowly but surely into seminaries, parishes, everywhere?"
"Oh, I know very well that there have been complaints from the faithful who are afraid. We are not altogether free from difficulties, but, after all, they don't amount to much."
Then I said to him: "Holy Father, listen. I have in my pocket a letter from a Polish bishop."
He looked at it: "N..., he is the communists' Enemy Number One. They are scared of him." He read part of the letter and then he said to me: "Yes, but you have to be careful. I wonder if this letter is genuine. One of the communist tricks is to compose false letters and spread them left, right and center as to divide the Catholics and divide the bishops."
“Of course, I am no judge of that."
“Anyway," he said, "these liturgical questions: they are disciplinary questions, disciplinary: perhaps we had better look into the question."
Religious Liberty
He went back to the Council: "You know, the Decree on Religious Liberty has been a great help to us in Poland."
“No doubt. It can serve in that way – an argumentum ad hominen; but all the same there have been serious consequences of that declaration since its approval by the Council, above all the laicization and de-Christianization of Catholic States." I quoted Colombia, the Canton of Valais, and the words of the Nuncio at Berne whom I had myself asked why Mgr. Adam had written to his diocesans inviting them to vote suppression of the first article in the Valais Constitution according to which the Catholic religion is the only one officially recognized in the Canton of Valais. I said to the Nuncio: “That is a bit too much!”
The Nuncio replied: “But the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is very difficult these days.”
Then I said: "And the Encyclical Quas Primas. What about that, then?" He replied: "Today, Pope Pius XI would not write it!”
The Holy Father then said to me: "That's not the way to say it. We should say, rather: 'He would not write it in the same way’."
I replied: “That may be so…but the social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ should certainly be acknowledged in Catholic States. There are plenty of communist States based on the communist religion, and Muslim States whose official religion is Islam, and Protestant States whose official religion is Protestantism. I don't see why Catholic States…why there can't be officially Catholic States." The Pope answered: “Oh, yes, yes, that's true."
“We Must Come to a Practical Solution”
"But now," he said, "we must be practical, we must come to a conclusion."
I answered: "Could you nominate an intermediary with whom I could discuss, and examine things more closely?"
He said: "Precisely! I thought of that, and it will be Cardinal Seper. I very much want it to be Cardinal Seper, he is a friend of mine, I know him well, he knows your business and will be dealing with it. I'll call him at once."
Cardinal Seper: “You are making a banner out of the Mass of Saint Pius V!”
"Good! He is efficient!"
The Pope got up at once – smartly, I can tell you! He is lively. He went to his office and phoned for Cardinal Seper to come, and he arrived three or four minutes later. He sat on my right. I wish a photograph could have been taken! The Pope on my left, Cardinal Seper on my right – very democratic!
The Pope summed up quickly for the Cardinal and said: "We must find a solution without delay."
But the Cardinal then proved difficult. "Yes," he said. "But wait a moment. They are making a banner out of the Mass of Saint Pius V."
"Oh," I said, "Not a banner! The Mass is of capital importance, essential in the Church, and that is why for us it is a grave and primary problem.”
The Cardinal answered: "What Pope Paul VI said to me was true! He would have made it possible to say the Mass of Saint Pius V if you had not turned that Mass into a banner!”
By that he meant that we criticize the other Mass, that we do not want it: and, upon my word, that is exactly true.
He went on: "Monseigneur, two and a half years ago you came to see me.
"So I did."
"You came to ask my advice. What did I tell you? I told you: 'Obedience, obedience, obedience, obedience!' There!"
"Yes. And what did obedience require me to do?"
"If you had closed your seminary and all your Houses, if you had stopped everything, stopped it for a year and a half or two years, everything could then have been arranged."
"That I think is a totally gratuitous assertion. I do not know what would have become of us. We should have been dead, and we should have continued dead, just that!"
The End of the Audience
The Pope intervened: "Yes. Look into that…stay here, I have to go, Cardinal Baggio is waiting for me with dossiers this high! Your Eminence, stay and talk."
But the Cardinal had no wish to stay with me. He got up, saying: “No. Not now. In any case, Monseigneur, you will be receiving a letter in two or three weeks asking you to come again to Rome for an interview. We can talk of these things then. Besides, you must be given the results of the study we made of what you sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." That was the end. I paid my respects to the Pope who once more embraced me warmly. I said good-bye to Cardinal Seper, and we parted. And that's how matters stand for the moment.
Can We give a Direction to the Reform, and Limit the Damage?
What I noticed in the Holy Father is that he is very pious, that he has a great love for the Blessed Virgin, that he is completely anti-marxist (I do not say anti-communist, but anti-marxist), and that he will do all he can to suppress abuses and keep the reform within limit; but I must confess that he appears to be basically in agreement with the Council and with the reforms – he just does not question them. And that is serious, because it means that he is for ecumenism, for collegiality, and for religious liberty.
Always the same Three Things!
Those are the three capital ideas from the Council. It is they which make the spirit of the Council. They are what the progressives wanted and what in practice they obtained – watered down perhaps, but they got them, and they will not loosen their hold on them! Study those ideas, and see how serious they are!
1. Collegiality: that means number against person, the law of number against the authority of the person. It is no longer the person who has authority, but number! It is democracy, or at least the democratic principle. It is no longer Our Lord Who commands through the authorities (it is Our Lord Who is the Authority, and in the Church all those who have authority – Pope, Bishops, Priests – share in the authority of Our Lord). By the very fact that number is put in the place of the person, that authority is given to number, authority is in the people, in the rank and file, in the group. That is absolutely contrary to what Our Lord wanted, to the personal authority which He always wanted to give: the Pope has a personal authority; the Bishop has a personal authority by his consecration; the Priest has a personal authority by his sacramental character, his ordination; in the Church authority is personal. The subject of authority (he who is going to exercise it) may be designated democratically, but the authority cannot be so given. That is an important principle. On a false principle Our Lord could lose His crown.
2. Ecumenism: Fraternity. That is not directly contrary to Our Lord, but ecumenism is, for it is a fraternity which destroys paternity. Who makes the unity of brothers? It is the father. Ecumenism makes us all brothers in a sentimental communion but no longer in the faith, no longer in the faith taught us by Our Lord, no longer in the "Father" we have in the Creed. That unity is not in the Father but in a vague feeling of subjectivism, of religious sentiment : it is Modernism.
3. Religious Liberty: that is conscience in place of law. Once more something subjective in place of law, which is objective. And what is this law? It is the Word of God. The Word of God is the Law: Our Savior Himself is our Law. You can see how all that is directly opposed to the authority of Our Lord!
On Those Three Principles the Church Cannot Survive.
That, for the Church, is a catastrophe. The Church cannot live in an atmosphere directly opposed to Our Lord, its Founder, opposed to what makes the unity of the Church, her truth and her law. They have no hope of damming the harm done by those principles. They will try to set limits, to make the catechisms a little more orthodox; but until they have gone back to those fundamentals of the Council and brought them into line with tradition there is nothing to be done. It is that which is serious.
He is no Longer a Polish Bishop!
It is a pity. He seems to be attached to order and discipline; but he is certainly filled with Liberal ideas. Cardinal Wyszynski could well tell himself: "He did well as Archbishop of Cracow, because he fought the communists." That is what makes the unity of Poland, anti-communism and devotion to the Blessed Virgin – the devil is in communism, and then there is the Blessed Virgin: with two such elements it is easy to see how the Poles can be united among themselves and with their bishops. But Poland and the circumstances of Poland are one thing: what matters is what he is going to do as Pope. For in the West, communism does not have such a hold, and as for devotion to the Blessed Virgin, he himself has it, but where is it now in the surrounding world? And that is the problem. What he was able to do as bishop united with the other Polish bishops to save the reign of Our Lord from disappearing – will he be able to do that as Pope, in other, completely different, circumstances?
Hope of Recovery
At least we can pray to the Blessed Virgin that when he becomes aware of the gross difficulties he will meet in the exercise of his power as Pope he will reconsider himself and perhaps conclude that he must return to Tradition. That is a grace for which we should pray to the Blessed Virgin. In another three or four months we shall know one way or another, when he has had a look at his surroundings and at what is happening in Western Europe.
Source
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1982 Conference at Martigny - The Drama of the Church Today |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-16-2020, 09:58 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre at Martigny
21 March 1982
My dear friends,
I am sure the Blessed Virgin Mary is happy today, that she is looking upon us with joy and that she has been much consoled with the prayers offered to her throughout the night just past. You have certainly been most obedient to the wishes of the Blessed Virgin Mary, following the initiative of some true and faithful Catholic laymen.
In all her apparitions and particularly at Fatima, she asked us to pray and do penance. This is why you are here, many of you coming from far away. In spite of inconveniences you have willingly taken on this penance and have come here to pray. To pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose wish we shall fulfill in a few minutes when we repeat, in the words of Pope Pius XII, the consecration of the world and of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
What Christian today, what faithful Catholic, does not feel the need to pray and do penance, in present world circumstances? We are a little like those who invited their friends to the wedding feast at Cana and, when they ran short of wine, turned to the Virgin Mary with anxious looks, asking the Mother of Jesus to put in a word with her Divine Son to relieve them of this worry of having no more wine to serve their guests. So Mary turned to Jesus and said to Him, "They have no wine." And Jesus performed the wonderful miracle of transforming water into wine. A mirror image of the situation we find ourselves in today!
We too turn to the Blessed Virgin, where we can still today find the grace of God, where we can still find divine life in this world. The wine symbolizes precisely the Blood of Christ, which transmits divine life to us. We shall listen to the words of the Blessed Virgin Mary saying, "Do whatever He tells you." So now, we too are making a resolution to listen to the Blessed Virgin and to do whatever Our Lord Jesus Christ tells us.
And what is He telling us? What is He revealing? His Revelation tells us that the most beautiful, the most admirable, the most perfect of His creatures did not make good use of the freedom which Our Lord, as God, gave them. Yes, He has shown us that this extraordinary conflict took place in heaven between the good angels and the wicked angels, between those who wanted to become like God and St. Michael the Archangel at the head of all the angels loyal to God. Quis ut Deus? "Who is like God?"
So He plunged the wicked angels into hell. This is what God tells us. Not only on earth, therefore, do men misuse their freedom, this extraordinary gift which God gave them to do good and not evil. It has already happened in heaven.
So the situation is that, henceforth and for all eternity, there will be, on the one side, the glory of Our Lord Jesus Christ united to the Father and to the Holy Ghost, which will shine in the hearts of all the elect, of all who are united to God: the holy angels, the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, all the saints, the martyrs, all who follow the law of God and love Him here below.
And then there is hell. Hell, the place forever of those who tried to resist God, tried to make themselves God a state of eternal separation from God. This is what Our Lord teaches us.
He dwelt among us to make reparation for the sin of our first Parents, who had abused their freedom and disobeyed God. So He too found Himself in confrontation and opposition to those who wanted to put Him to death. Because Satan, if he can do no more in heaven, because he has been confined to hell once and for all, can still work here below and try to populate hell in ever greater numbers. God permits him to do this. We have seen Our Lord Jesus Christ persecuted by Satan, by the devil himself. Satan believed that his definitive victory had been achieved. He had succeeded in crucifying God Himself, body and soul. God seemed dead. He had breathed His last.
Satan cried victory, because it was Satan who wanted to crucify Him. This is in the Gospel. When Judas went off to betray Our Lord, having taken the Bread which Our Lord had given Him, the Gospel says, "Satan entered into his soul." So it is indeed a struggle, a struggle between Our Lord and all who wanted to crucify Him. And who showed up as the means of the crucifixion of Our Lord? False religions and bad governments. This is in the Gospel. The Scribes and the Pharisees said, "What do you think? He has blasphemed, because He makes Himself the Son of God, and because He has blasphemed, He must be crucified."
Yes, from that moment Israel abandoned the religion which Jesus had taught them. And instead of recognizing the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, they rejected the Messias and crucified Him. There are also those who said, in the name of pagan governments, as Pilate hesitated to crucify Him, "If you do not put Him to death, you are no friend of Caesar, because everyone who makes himself king sets himself against Caesar." So you see, it is perfectly clear: in the Gospel there are false religions and bad governments which crucify Our Lord Jesus Christ. But, as you know, Our Lord escaped them. Satan thought He was dead once and for all, the Scribes and Pharisees too. And Our Lord rose, He ascended to heaven triumphantly, gloriously, henceforth for all eternity. He enters again into the glory of His Father and of the Holy Ghost in the Holy Trinity.
But He founded the Church, His Mystical Body which carries on the struggle, which henceforth will be open to all the attacks of the devil and of all those who wish to destroy Our Lord. Because Our Lord slipped past them, they will persecute members of the Church.
This is what Our Lord said to St. Paul to Saul on the road to Damascus, "Why persecutest thou Me?" Thus Our Lord considered persecution of His members as persecution of Himself. "Why persecutest thou Me?"
Yes, the Church is the Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ. So, throughout the history of the Church, you have seen this struggle carried on by heretics, by every means at their disposal, in all the attacks which the Church has undergone in the course of her history, all the martyrs and all those who have been witnesses of the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Church. This conflict continues, it continues into our own day. And it continues with the Blessed Virgin Mary at our side, because she has entered the lists. She is no pacifist, the Blessed Virgin Mary. "She is powerful," says the Scripture, "as an army in battle array." She is represented crushing the head of Satan. So she is in the struggle. She is on our side to help us.
Now what shall we do, we Catholics of the twentieth century, members of the Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Shall we lay down our arms? This is the drama of the Church today. They want us to lay down our arms. They want us to enter into a kind of pacifism which is nothing more nor less than cowardice. In the face of Satan, in the face of the enemy, in the face of all those who seek the destruction of the Church, in the face of those who want to crush all Christians, to finish off Our Lord Jesus Christ here below, we are supposed to lay down our weapons. First of all, the weapon of prayer. We are not supposed to pray any more. The churches will be empty. We will come no more to adore the Blessed Sacrament, no longer pray to the Blessed Virgin. So Satan will be happy, he will have won a great victory, and he will take millions and millions of souls to hell.
There you have it, my dear friends, the great drama which the Church is experiencing today, worse than the attacks of the Moslems in the time of Pope Saint Pius V; worse than Protestantism in the sixteenth century, worse than all heresies and schisms put together.
Today the evil is inside the Church. We must realize that, until the Second Vatican Council, popes, bishops, and priests fought courageously alongside the faithful, leading the faithful in the struggle against Satan and all his works.
Now we are astonished to see that, since the Council, because of two attitudes of those with responsibility in the Church, two attitudes which are contrary to this struggle, which undermine the Church, we are told we have now arrived at a time when we must have peace at any price.
So, vis-à-vis other religions, we have ecumenism. They are saying about all religions which are against the Church: "Now we must have unity, we must lay down our arms, we embrace you, in order to have union." The union of truth with error, the union of shadows with the Light, the union of Satan with God. This is what St. Paul says. How is it possible? It is part of what they call Ostpolitik. The Vatican has changed its policy. From now on we must cooperate with all hostile governments, hostile to the Church, governments which have only one end in view: to destroy Our Lord Jesus Christ in His embers, in His Church. This is their one aim. They use possible means, falsehood and with so much more effectiveness dialogue, if that will serve their purpose. This is the program: peaceful coexistence, detente, dialogue. We have handed over to these governments the poor priests and faithful who were fighting in defense of their faith.
At the present time in Czechoslovakia, in Rumania, there are bishops called Peace Priests, appointed by and answerable to the government, as in the Russian Orthodox Church, totally under the control of the communist government. And these bishops turn good priests out, turn good Catholics out, because they will not obey the communist government, because they want to have their children baptized, because they want their children taught the catechism, because the priests want to go out and visit the sick, to take Holy Communion to them, to teach catechism (secretly, if necessary), to hear confessions in homes, if people have difficulty in getting to church. All this is against the communist government regulations. This is why the bishops persecute these good priests.
And I say it is the same thing with us. I also say that these good priests, these good Catholics, are sacrificed on the altar of Ostpolitik and of dialogue with wicked governments, just as we are sacrificed on the altar of ecumenism, in maintaining our Catholic Faith, which teaches that there is only one Church.
There are not two religions, there is only the religion of God, the religion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord Jesus Christ is God. He came to earth to found His religion. There are not two religions, there is only one religion, the Catholic religion, and so, if we believe there is only one religion, we should pray and do penance for the conversion of souls, for their conversion and not to embrace them with all their errors and vices. This is not doing them a favor. It is deceiving them. This has always been the attitude of the Church: to send missionaries all over the world, even if they are martyred, to win souls for Christ and for the Church.
It has never been understood that henceforth there should be no more missionaries. We want to uphold and prolong the Catholic Church. We want to uphold the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We want to proclaim that the Catholic Church is the true religion and that everyone is called to convert to the Catholic Church. For this we pray, we do penance and we try with all means at our disposal to do good wherever we are, in order to convert souls.
There you have it, my dear friends, the resolution which we should make today, especially to have devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to her Immaculate Heart. With her we will fight, we will continue the combat. We will continue the fight against ourselves, against all that is evil in ourselves, all that is evil in our families, all that is evil in our cities, so that Our Lord Jesus Christ can reign everywhere and always. We will pray to the Good Lord and to the Blessed Virgin Mary to help us to continue the fight. We will not be taken in by this false ecumenism. This false ecumenism has completely transformed our holy liturgy. We reject this transformed liturgy which is supposed to turn us into Protestants, because we do not want to give the Eucharist to Protestants. They are not of our Faith. They cannot receive our Eucharist. We wish to convert them first, convert them to our Faith, and then they will be able to receive our Eucharist joyfully.
There you have, my dear friends, what I wanted to say to you. In a few minutes we shall join, shall we not, with our Lady of Fatima, with all those who have faith in Our Lady, especially to the great and venerated Pope Pius XII, who drew up this consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We shall repeat his very words and put our entire lives and souls under the protection of the Immaculate Heart and pray that the reign of Mary be established over the earth and over souls.
From Fideliter, May/June 1982 as published here.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
[/color]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1984 Conference on the 'Poisoned Chalice' of the New Code of Canon Law |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-16-2020, 09:46 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
The poisoned chalice of the New Code of Canon law
Given by Archbishop Lefebvre in Turin, Italy - March 24, 1984
I want to speak to you of a very serious novelty: the New Code of Canon Law. I had not seen any necessity for a change. But if the law changes, the law changes, and we must make use of it, for the Church can ask nothing evil from her faithful.
However, when one reads this new code of Canon Law one discovers an entirely new conception of the Church. It is easy to be aware of, since John Paul II himself describes it in the apostolic constitution which introduces the new Code.
Quote:". . . It follows that which constitutes the fundamental novelty of Vatican Council II, in full continuity with the legislative tradition of the Church (this is to deceive), especially in that which concerns ecclesiology, constitutes also the novelty of the new Code."
Hence the novelty of the conception of the Church according to the Council is equally the novelty of the conception of the new Code of Canon Law.
What is this novelty? It is that there is no longer any difference between the clergy and the laity. There is now just the faithful, nothing else, on account of the "doctrine according to which all the members of the people of God, according to the mode which is proper to each, partake in the triple priestly, prophetic and royal function of Jesus Christ. To this doctrine is likewise attached that which concerns the duties and rights of the faithful and particularly the laity, and finally the Church's involvement in ecumenism!"
This is the definition of the Church (Canon 204):
Quote:"The faithful are those who, inasmuch as they are incorporated in Christ by baptism are constituted as the people of God, and who for this reason, having been made partakers in their manner in the priestly, prophetic and royal functions of Christ, are called to exercise the mission that God entrusted to the Church to accomplish in the world..."
We are all faithful, members of the people of God, and we all therefore have ministries! It is clearly said in the Code: all the faithful have ministries. They therefore all have the responsibility to teach, to sanctify and even to direct.
Let us continue our commentary on this Canon 204:
Quote:"...having been made partakers in their manner in the priestly, prophetic and royal function of Christ, they are called to exercise the mission which God entrusted to the Church to accomplish in the world, according to the juridical condition proper to each one."
Hence everyone without exception, without distinction between clergy and laity, inasmuch as they are the people of God, has the responsibility of this mission entrusted by Jesus Christ properly to the Church. There is no longer any clergy. What, then, happens to the clergy?
It is as if they said that it is no longer parents who have the responsibility to give life to children but the family, or rather all the members of the family: parents and children. This is exactly the same thing as saying today that Bishops, priests and laymen have all responsibility for the mission of the Church. But who gives the graces to become a Catholic? How does one become faithful? No one knows any more who has the responsibility for what. It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church. Everything is oriented towards the laymen, and little by little the sacred ministers disappear. The minor orders and the subdiaconate have already disappeared. Now there are married deacons, and little by little laymen take over the ministry of the priests. This is precisely what Luther and the protestants did, laicizing the priesthood. It is consequently very serious.
This is quite openly explained in an article in the Osservatore Romano of March 17, 1984:
Quote:"The role of the laity in the new Code." "The active function that the laity has been called on to exercise since Vatican II by participating in the condition and mission of the entire Church according to their particular vocation is a doctrine which, in the context of the appearance of the concept of the people of God has brought about a reevaluation of the laity, as much in the foundation of the Church as for the active role they are called on to develop in the building up of the Church."
Such is the inspiration of the whole new Code of Canon Law. It is this definition of the Church which is the poison which infects the new laws.
The same can be said for the Liturgy. There is a relationship between this new Code of Canon Law and the entire liturgical reform, as Bugnini said in his book The Fundamental Principles of the Changing of the Liturgy.
Quote:"The path opened by the Council is destined to change radically the traditional liturgical assembly in which, according to a custom dating back many centuries, the liturgical service is almost exclusively accomplished by the clergy. The people assist, but too much as a stranger and a dumb spectator."
What? How can one dare say that the faithful are present at the sacrifice of the Mass as simply dumb spectators so as to change the Liturgy? How must the faithful be active in the sacrifice of the Mass? By the body or spiritually? Obviously spiritually. One can draw a great spiritual profit from assisting at Mass in silence. It is, in effect, a mystery of our Faith. How many have become saints in this silence of the true Mass!
Quote:"A long education will be necessary for the Liturgy to become an action of all the people of God." Without a doubt. Then he adds that he is speaking of "a substantial unity but not a uniformity. You must realize that this is a true break with the past."
This past is the twenty centuries of prayer of the Church.
Bugnini was the key man in the liturgical reform. I went to see Cardinal Cicognani when this reform was published and I said to him: "Your Eminence, I am not in agreement with this change. The Mass no longer has its mystical and divine character." He replied:
Quote:"Excellency, it is like that. Bugnini can enter as he likes into the Pope's office to make him sign what he wants."
This is what happened to the Secretariat of State. This is how all these changes happened. They agreed on it beforehand, and then obtained signatures for some changes, and then others, and then others. I said to Cardinal Gut:
Quote:"Your Eminence, you are responsible for Divine Worship, and you accord permission for the Blessed Sacrament to be received in the hand! They will know that this was published with the agreement of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship!"
He replied:
Quote:"Excellency, I do not even know if I will be asked for it to be done. You know, it is not I who command. The boss is Bugnini. If the Pope asks me what I think of Communion in the hand, I will cast myself on my knees before him to ask him not to do it."
You see, then, how things happened at Rome: a simple signature on the bottom of a decree and the Church is ruined by numerous sacrileges ... The real presence of Our Lord is ruined, for it is no longer respected. Then, nothing sacred remains, as was seen at the large reunion at which the Pope was present, where the Blessed Sacrament was passed around from hand to hand between thousands of persons. Nobody genuflects anymore before the Blessed Sacrament. How can they still believe that God is present there?
It is this same spirit which inspired the changing of the Canon Law as that which inspired the changes in the Liturgy: it is the people of God, the assembly, which does everything. The same applies to the priest. He is a simple president who has a ministry, as others have a ministry, in the midst of an assembly. Our orientation towards God has likewise disappeared. This comes from the Protestants who say that Eucharistic devotion (for them there is neither Mass nor sacrifice: this would be blasphemy) is simply a movement of God towards man, but not of man towards God to render Him glory, which is nevertheless the first (latreutic) end of the Liturgy. This new state of liturgical mind comes likewise from Vatican II: everything is for man. The bishops and priest are at the service of man and the assembly. But where is God then? In what is His glory sought? What will we do in heaven? For in heaven "all is for the glory of God," which is exactly what we ought to do here on earth. But all that is done away with, and replaced by man. This is truly the ruin of all Catholic thought.
You know that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion to a Protestant. It is what they call eucharistic hospitality. These are Protestants who remain Protestant and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To give Communion to a Protestant is to rupture the Faith and its unity.
Source
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: masks-62.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1024]](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/12/masks-62.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1024)
![[Image: Screen-Shot-2020-12-10-at-8.27.35-AM-998x679.png]](https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Screen-Shot-2020-12-10-at-8.27.35-AM-998x679.png)
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Facelebrationofwomen.org%...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Facelebrationofwomen.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2FGreat-Advent-%25E2%2580%2598O-antiphons..jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: Hilary.jpg]](https://www.catholicireland.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Hilary.jpg)
![[Image: 2017010730.jpg]](https://www.catholic.org/files/images/ins_news/2017010730.jpg)
![[Image: img-Blessed-Veronica-of-Milan.jpg]](https://catholicsaints.info/wp-content/uploads/img-Blessed-Veronica-of-Milan.jpg)
![[Image: Sainte-Olympiade-Veuve.jpg]](https://messadelpapa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Sainte-Olympiade-Veuve.jpg)
![[Image: vaccine-coronavirus-640x480.jpg]](https://media.breitbart.com/media/2020/12/vaccine-coronavirus-640x480.jpg)
