| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 1077 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 1074 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Yandex
|
|
|
| New Book: Great Influence of Ratzinger in the Revolutionary Upheaval of VII |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 09:48 PM - Forum: The Architects of Vatican II
- No Replies
|
 |
New biography describes great influence of Joseph Ratzinger in the revolutionary upheaval of Vatican II
Ratzinger's influence helped to bring about a revolutionary change of the Council's direction, tone, and topics.
December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A new authoritative biography of Pope Benedict XVI written by Peter Seewald describes in detail the important role then-Professor Joseph Ratzinger played before and during the Second Vatican Council. His influence helped to bring about a revolutionary change of the Council's direction, tone, and topics. For example, he was able to change the presentation of the Church's own concept of the sources of Revelation, he helped suppress a separate Council text on Our Lady, he opposed an “anti-Modernist spirit,” and he was in favor of more widely using the vernacular languages during Holy Mass. As Seewald himself stated in a recent interview: Ratzinger helped the “advance of Modernism in the Church,” and he “was always a progressive theologian.”
The German journalist Peter Seewald, who as an adult had returned to his Catholic faith, has published several books together with Joseph Ratzinger and repeatedly interviewed Pope Emeritus Benedict for his new biography, entitled Benedict XVI: A Life. The biography has been already published in German in its entirety, it will be published in English in two volumes, with the first volume being published on December 15, by Bloomsbury.
Ratzinger the progressivist
Speaking in May of this year to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung about his new biography, Seewald described the role of Ratzinger before and during the Council, and afterwards, as well. “It is definitively so that his impulses contributed at the time to the advance of Modernism in the Catholic Church,” Seewald explained, adding that Ratzinger himself “was also one of the first who warned against the abuse of the Council.”
Seewald then also discussed the claim that Ratzinger had made a “conservative turn” after the Council. He explained that “part of the narrative” was “Ratzinger's reversal,” the talk about “the former progressivist's treason who became a reactionary.” But, objected Seewald, “such a reversal has never taken place.” “Ratzinger was always a progressivist theologian,” the journalist continued, “only the notion progressivist was [then] being understood differently than today: as a modernization of the house, not as its destruction.”
As this new biography shows, Ratzinger's views in the 1950s were so progressive that his own post-doctoral thesis was originally even rejected by the head of the University of Munich, Professor Michael Schmaus who “made it clear,” writes Seewald, “that he considers this young theologian to be a Modernist.” Some contemporary professors accused him of an emotional theology and of a “dangerous Modernism which leads to a subjectivization of the notion of Revelation.”
Seewald describes how Ratzinger, as professor of theology, showed already then an openness toward other religions; for example, when teaching a class on Hinduism in the 1950s, Ratzinger claimed that “also in Hinduism, one sees the action of God's spirit,” according to Seewald who adds that these thoughts “anticipated in essential points statements of Nostra Aetate, the Council's Declacation on the world religions.”
Ratzinger was also in favor of the use of the vernacular language at Mass and for an increased participation of the faithful; he once criticized that bishops were “condemned to be silent observers” at the opening Mass of the Council, regretting that the “active participation of those present was not requested.” This theme was also discussed at the Council. Ratzinger also had, prior to the Council, a high regard for the dialogue with the Jews and looked up to them as “Fathers” of Christians.
In 1958, Ratzinger wrote a controversial article. “For the Christian of today,” Ratzinger wrote in 1958 in his Das Hochland article, “it has become unthinkable that Christianity, or more specifically the Catholic Church, is to be the only path of salvation.”
“With it,” he continued, “the absoluteness of the Church, yes and of all her demands, has become obsolete from within.” How could we still tell Mohammedans today, Ratzinger explained, that they “will definitely go to hell, since they do not belong to the only saving Church”? Continued the professor: “Our humanity simply hinders us to hold on to such ideas. We cannot believe that our neighbor who is a great, charitable, and benevolent man will go to hell because he is not a practicing Catholic.”
Ratzinger and the Council itself
With these leanings, Ratzinger was prepared to play an important role at the upheaval that took place at the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965. Here are some key elements of his crucial role:
•He wrote, in November of 1961, a speech that was delivered in Genoa, Italy by Cardinal Josef Frings (Cologne) on the theology of the Council which was highly cherished by Pope John XXIII and even incorporated in the papal opening speech of the Council in October of 1962. Ratzinger then said that, “as a ‘Council for Renewal’, the Council’s task must be less to formulate doctrines.” He also proposed to enter into a “dialogue” with a secular world, presenting Christianity as an alternative. “Perhaps the Church should drop many old forms, which are not longer suitable […] be willing to strip off the faith’s timebound clothing,” Ratzinger then wrote.
•After being appointed the advisor of Cardinal Frings in 1961, Ratzinger sharply criticized the prepared documents of the Council that had been written by different commissions. He regretted the “antiquated” language of some of the texts, and he thought some of these so-called schematas were better to be “dropped altogether.” He regretted that these texts were written “in a very conservative spirit.” The schema on Revelation was so bad in his eyes – and its traditional understanding of the subject not acceptable – that he wanted to rename the schema and rewrite it (it was indeed renamed into Verbum Dei).
•One day before the official opening of the Council, Ratzinger gave a key speech to influential Council Fathers, criticizing the preparatory document on Revelation. He was a member of a small group with Father Karl Rahner who wrote up not only an alternative draft for that schema, but also for other documents. Seewald calls Ratzinger therefore “the Spindoctor.”
•Ratzinger was clearly opposed to the old scholastic theology. Seewald quotes him as follows: “‘ of the opinion that scholastic theology, as it had been set, is no longer a means fit to bring the faith into the language of the time.' The faith must ‘get out of this armour, adopt a new language, and be more open to the present situation. So there must also be greater freedom in the Church.’” Moreover, the 34-year-old professor was very concerned at the time not to alienate other Christians with the Council, that is to say, he kept before his eyes “the feelings and thoughts of the separated brethren.”
•Very importantly, Ratzinger was opposed to the idea of having a separate schema dedicated to Our Lady, and indeed, that schema was then rejected. In mid-1962, he had written to Cardinal Frings the following comment, which we quote here at length: “I believe this Marian schema should be abandoned, for the sake of the Council’s goal. If the Council as a whole is supposed to be a [i]suave incitamentum to the separated brethren and ad quaerendum unitatem, then it must take a certain amount of pastoral care […] No new wealth will be given to the Catholics which they did not already have. But a new obstacle will be set up for outsiders (especially the Orthodox). By the adoption of such a schema the Council would endanger its whole effect. I would advise total renunciation of this doktrinelles caput (the Romans must simply make that sacrifice) and instead just put a simple prayer for unity to God’s mother at the end of the Ecclesiology schema. This should be without [resorting to] undogmatized terms such as mediatrix etc.”
•The group of German theologians who regularly met at the German seminary Santa Maria dell'Anima was at the heart of a development that led to bitter quarrels at the Council, up to an “October crisis,” a “November crisis” and the famous “Black Thursday,” when the whole Council stood on the brink. And at the center of it all stood Ratzinger, and this from the beginning. As Hubert Luthe, one of these collaborators of Ratzinger, was to say: “The Germans strongly influenced the Council. There was one towering figure in particular: Ratzinger.”
•Several of his French collaborators of the Nouvelle Théologie, as Seewald points out, had been under the suspicion of heresy before the Council. Among them were Yves-Marie-Joseph Congar, Henri de Lubac, as well as the German Karl Rahner. In order to avoid suspicion, Congar – one of the periti at the Council – counseled that their meetings should not inspire the impression that they were “hatching a plot.”
•Seewald even says that Ratzinger was “playing with fire” when he, on the day before the Council, set the tone against the prepared schematas, even hoping to be able to rewrite some of them. He proposed to rewrite a schema, the one on Revelation, that had already been approved by the Pope himself. Ratzinger had regretted that this schema on Revelation is “wholly determined by the anti-Modernist spirit, which had developed around the turn of the century,” adding that it was this “anti-spirit of negation which would be sure to have a cold, even shocking effect.”
•Frings and Ratzinger, together with some colleagues, were already considering at the eve of the Council how to change to rules for the election of the Council commissions, so as to be able to influence the redaction of the documents.
•“Seven Days That Changed the Catholic Church For Ever,” is the title of the Seewald chapter that describes how the progressivist group (the French, German, Belgian, and Dutch bishops and their advisors) – and Ratzinger prominently among them – took over the leadership at the Council. Cardinal Archille Liénart, was to violate the council rules by grabbing the microphone on the first working day of the Council, October 13, and requesting a time for debate in order to get to know the potential members of the commissions before electing them, as had been planned. Frings did the same right afterwards, asking for more time for discussion before the election of the commission members. They succeeded: the election of the commission members was delayed and they had the time to prepare a list of candidates that they then efficiently promoted among the Council Fathers, thereby getting key positions in the commissions occupied by their collaborators. Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens called this act a “happy coup” and a “daring violation of the rules.” Out of 109 candidates of their list, 79 were then elected by the Council, covering 49% of all the seats available.
•An important piece of information is that Frings was able to gain many supporters from the mission countries of South America and elsewhere, according to Seewald, since he, as the founder of the German bishops' relief agencies Misereor and Adveniat, had their “trust,” surely also due to his generous donations. Seewald also points out that the German bishops were the largest net contributors to the Vatican at the time.
•In the following month, on November 14, the progressivist group successfully also intervened against the already prepared schemata. They wanted to rewrite them. On that day, Cardinal Frings delivered a speech written by then-Professor Ratzinger; he claimed that the prepared schema on Revelation did not have “the voice of a mother,” but, rather, the “voice of a schoolmaster.” Rather, Frings/Ratzinger argued, it would be important to implement the “pastoral style” as wished by Pope John XXIII. The only source of Revelation, Frings stated in the Council hall, was “the word of God,” (not, as it was traditionally stated, Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition). In light of this strong resistance on the part of the progressivist wing at the Council, the Pope then suddenly decided, on November 21, to withdraw the prepared schema on Revelation himself, thereby giving more influence to this group of churchmen. And he did this, even though he had already approved of the schema. Establishing a new commission for a new draft of this schema, the Pope decided that not only Cardinal Augustin Bea, but also Frings and Liénart were to be in it. This decision was crucial: the schematas were open to change/
•Looking back at these moments, Pope Benedict XVI told Seewald: “I am surprised how boldly I spoke out then, but it is true that because a proposed text was rejected, there was a real change, and a completely new start to the discussion became possible.” He was also to write that the “bishops were not anymore the same as they had been before the Council opened,” adding that “instead of the old negative ‘anti’, a new positive hope emerged to abandon the defensive and to think and act in a positively Christian way. The spark had been lit.”
•Giuseppe Ruggieri, professor of fundamental theology in Bologna, later commented that this week from 14 to 21 November 1962, which was devoted to the debate on the schema De fontibus revelationis, “was the moment when a decisive change took place for the future of the Council and therefore for the Catholic Church itself: from the Pacelli Church, which was essentially hostile to modernity […] to the Church which is a friend to all humanity, even when they are children of modern society, its culture and history.” Ratzinger, too, saw that this week showed a rejection of “the continuation of the anti-Modernist spirituality” and an approval of “a new way of positive thinking and speaking.” And he was crucial in this change of the Council's attitude. That is why he then also was accused of being a “Modernist” and of having written a “typically Freemasonic text” with his alternative draft of the schema on Revelation.
•Be it as it may, Seewald's own commentary on this moment of the Council is: “Frings and his advisor [Ratzinger] had turned the Council around. The minority of those wanting reform had become a majority.” As it seems, a well-organized minority was able to implement its views.
•Throughout the Council sessions, Ratzinger worked closely with Frings for whom he wrote 11 speeches. In one of these speeches, Ratzinger wrote that “we have to be ready to learn” from the “ecumenical movement,” which he saw to be “from the Holy Ghost.” His arguments influenced many Council documents, among them Verbum Dei, Nostrae Aetate, and the decree on religious liberty.
•In 1963, the Frings/Ratzinger team launched another initiative at the Council. On 8 November of that year, Frings delivered a speech written by Ratzinger, in which he criticized the Holy Office “whose procedures still often do not accord with our time, and cause damage to the Church and scandal for man.” It was time for tolerance. Frings rebuked the Holy Office for its procedures that did not give sufficient a hearing to the accused one and that did not confront the accused one with the arguments. Frings also claimed that the accused one is not even given the chance to correct his own writings. He received much applause in the hall, yet Seewald also states that “no one had ever dared before to criticize Cardinal Ottaviani’s machinery so fiercely.” That same evening, the Pope asked Frings to make recommendations for a reform of the Holy Office.
•The “November crisis” of 1964 brought some change of the Pope's attitude – it was then already Paul VI, after John XXIII had died in June of 1963 – after too radical reform plans had come to light. Ratzinger was disappointed, yet saw that much change had been done with the help of the many “modi” submitted to the Council texts. It was in this time period that Pope Paul VI also decided, after all, to give after all some prominence to Our Lady. Against a vote from the Council, he announced, on 18 November, that he was to declare her the Mater Ecclesiae, the Mother of the Church, three days later. (According to one eye witness, Father Robert I. Bradley, S.J., there was an “audible hiss” at St. Peter's when the Pope made this announcement.) Here another painful note: It was again Frings, together with Cardinal Döpfner, who tried to intervene, at least attempting to modify Our Lady's title, but it was to no avail. After Paul VI declared Mary Mother of the Church, Cardinal Ruffini is said to have called out: “The Madonna won!”
•Ratzinger felt a little more re-assured when, during the fourth and last session of the Council in 1965, Paul VI announced that there would be an episcopal council that was to accompany the work of the Pope. He stated that this piece of news helped to “revive the optimism that was almost lost.” And, in continuation with the work of the previous sessions, religious liberty was then approved, Nostrae Aetate and Verbum Dei as well, the latter of which was heavily influenced by Ratzinger, whose very concept of Revelation had been adapted. Gaudium et Spes encouraged dialogue with society, working for peace. That is to say: many aspects of the reform were implemented, only some more alarming ones were halted. On 8 December 1965, there took place the last ceremony of the Council in the Vatican. One of the observers of the Council, Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgen, was to note that nobody had been “as influential” as Cardinal Frings, after the Pope. And, as we now know better, with Frings, it was Ratzinger who had been a great influence. Seewald calls him the “youthful spiritus rector of the greatest and most important Church assembly of all times.”
Resistance from conservative bishops
That there were some bishops very concerned about these promoters of change can be seen in the reaction of the Brazilian Bishop Giocondo Grotti. He defended the special role of Our Lady and asked: “Does ecumenism mean confessing the truth or hiding it? Should the Council declare Catholic doctrine or the doctrine of our separated brethren?”
And he concluded: “Keep the schemata separate! Let us openly confess our faith! Let us be the teachers we are in the Church by clearly teaching and not hiding what is true.” As Seewald puts it, however, in the end “Frings's speech on the Mother of God, which Ratzinger had written, was so convincing that even those bishops who at first had pleaded for a separate schema on Mary changed their minds.” In a poignant sense, Our Lady was effectively asked to leave the Marriage Feast of Cana. Some were embarrassed about her presence and thus they tried to hide her.
Another example of the reaction of the conservative wing at the Council was the head of the Holy Office, Cardinal Ottaviani. He is quoted by Seewald as saying: “I pray to God that I may die before the end of the Council. That way, I at least can die a Catholic.”
Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was highly alarmed and described the new tendencies at the Council as “hatred of theology,” as inventing “new paradigms,” a stressing of “pastoral care” and of “ecumenism,” warning that there existed attempts at “eliminating Tradition, Ecclesia, etc.” on the part of those “who wish to do adapt everything to the Protestants, the Orthodox, etc.” “Divine Tradition is being destroyed,” Siri concluded.
Bishop Geraldo de Proença Sigaud of Brazil was also indignant. He spoke about the “enemy of the Church” who has “toppled” the entire Catholic order, that is, the “City of God.” By concentrating on “human reason, on sensuality, on greed and on pride,” the enemy wishes to establish society and mankind “without God, without the Church, without Christ, without Revelation.” In order to achieve this goal, the prelate continued, “it is necessary to topple the Church in her foundations, to destroy her, and to push her back.” This enemy wishes to establish the “City of Man,” and “his name is revolution.”
Peter Seewald also shows that the 3,000 letters written by bishops ahead of the Council, concerning their own intentions for this ecclesial event, did not show “either a desire for a radical change, much less for a revolution.”
That desire for a revolution was left to a small group of highly intelligent and well-connected clergymen – among them Joseph Ratzinger.
Did Ratzinger regret his role after the Council?
The question is whether Joseph Ratzinger later changed his views and whether he later regretted his role before and during the Council. Peter Seewald does not detect in Ratzinger a “turn from a progressivist to a conservative theologian” inasmuch as he had “early on found his theological position and followed it consequently.” In light of this important role that Ratzinger played, the commentary from Seewald might also be of interest: “An irony of fate: Ratzinger contributed to a great extent to formulating the Council statements and thus shaping the modern face of the Church. He would fight for 50 years to defend and implement the ‘true Council’ – though for decades he was reproached with having betrayed the Council.” For some progressivists, such as Hans Küng, Ratzinger did not go far enough.
Seewald also asked Ratzinger in a 2017 interview book, Last Testament, whether he has “qualms of conscience” about his involvement at the Council, and Benedict then admitted that “one does indeed ask oneself whether one did it the right way. Especially when the whole thing went off the rails, this was certainly a question that one raised.” But while asking himself that question, he finally did not regret his work, saying that “I always had the consciousness that what we had factually said and implemented was right and that it also needed to happen.”
“In itself, we acted correctly – even if we certainly did not correctly assess the political effects and the factual consequences,” Benedict XVI then added. “One was thinking too much in a theological way and one did not consider what consequences the things would have.”
That is to say, Benedict does not regret any of his theological statements and orientations; he only admits of not having overseen the possible political effects of these changes. He still believes that the Council was needed when he stated that “there was a moment in the Church where one simply expected something new, a renewal, a renewal coming out of the whole – not only coming from Rome – unto a new encounter for the Universal Church.” In this regard,” Benedict concluded, “the hour was simply there.”
This article is a condensed version of a longer study published by Rorate Caeli.[/i]
|
|
|
| SiSiNoNo: The Errors of Vatican II |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 01:55 PM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- Replies (7)
|
|
[Dear readers, since we know that the Freemasons and all the avowed enemies of the Catholic Church have continually shown themselves well-versed in the errors of Vatican II in order to praise and promote those errors, it surely behooves us as traditional Catholics to understand those same errors in order to fight against them in defense of the True Catholic Faith. With that in mind, the following series is gratefully reprinted below. - The Catacombs]
January 2003 No. 50
The Errors of Vatican II
PART I
This installment of Angelus Press's Edition of SiSiNoNo begins a lengthy serialization of errors ascribed to the Second Vatican Council.
The "rap sheet" begins this time with a simple overview of the Council.
Further installments will concentrate on specific issues of doctrine, theology, definition, the Sacred Liturgy,
the so-called "separated brethren," the contemporary world, the missions, education, pastorality, and practice.
It will conclude with solutions.
* * *
In general, the mentality at the Second Vatican Council was little if at all Catholic. This can be said because of an inexplicable and undeniable man-centeredness and sympathy for the "world" and its deceptive values, all of which ooze from all of the Council's documents. More specifically, Vatican II has been accused of substantive and relevant ambiguities, patent contradictions, significant omissions and, what counts even more, of grave errors in doctrine and pastorality.
Vatican II's Ambiguous Juridical Nature
First of all, ambiguity pervades the Second Vatican Council's nature as to law (i.e., "juridical nature"). This remains unclear and appears indeterminate because Vatican II termed itself simply a "pastoral Council" which, therefore, did not intend to define dogmas or condemn errors. This can be seen from the address delivered at the Council's opening by Pope John XXIII on October 11, 1962, and in the Notificatio, publicly read on November 5, 1965. Therefore, the Council's two Constitutions, Dei Verbum (on Divine Revelation) and Lumen Gentium (on the Church), which, in fact, do concern matters of dogmas of the Faith, are dogmatic only in name and in a solely descriptive sense.
The Council wanted to disqualify the "authentically manifest and supreme ordinary Magisterium" (Pope Paul VI). This is an insufficient figure of speech for an ecumenical council since such councils always embody an extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium, with the Pope deciding to exercise its exceptional nature together with all of the bishops assembled by him in council. He acts therein as the suprema potestas of the entire Church, which he possesses by Divine right. Neither does reference to the "authentic character" of Vatican II explain things, because such a term generally means "authoritative" relative to the Holy Father's sole authority, not to his infallibility. The "mere authenticum"ordinary Magisterium is not infallible, while the ordinary Magisterium is infallible. In any case, the ordinary Magisterium's infallibility does not have the same characteristics as the extraordinary Magisterium. Thus, it cannot be applied to the Second Vatican Council. It is necessary to realize that the point in question is how many bishops throughout the Catholic world are teaching the same doctrine, and not how many are present at a Council.
Such being Vatican IIs actual juridical nature, it is certain that it did not wish to impart a teaching invested with infallibility. It is true that Pope Paul VI himself said that the Council's teaching ought to be "docilely and sincerely" accepted by the faithful, that is, with (we specifically note) what is always called "internal religious assent," something required of any pastoral document, for instance.
This assent is obligatory, but only on the condition that sufficient and grave reasons do not exist for not granting such assent. Might a question of "grave reason" be concerned when alterations in the deposit of Faith are evident? Already during Vatican IIs tormented discussions, cardinals, bishops, and theologians, faithful to dogma, repeatedly noted the ambiguities and errors which were infiltrating Council texts, errors that today, after 40 years of definitive reflection and study, we are grasping ever more precisely.
We do not pretend completeness for our synopsis of the errors ascribed to Vatican II. Yet it seems to us that we have specified in what follows a sufficient number of important ones, beginning with the first utterances such as those contained in the Council's October 20, 1962 "Address on Openness" by His Holiness John XXIII and the Council Fathers' "Message to the World." Though not one of the official, formal Council texts, nevertheless, these texts expressed the thinking wanted by the "progressive wing," that is, the neo-modernist innovators' line of thinking.
ADDRESS ON OPENNESS
Aside from its resoundingly divergent assertions denied by the facts, such as, "Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations that...are developing toward a fullness of superior and unexpected designs," Pope John XXIII's famous speech on opening up to the world contains three real and true doctrinal errors.
FIRST ERROR [of this Opening Address]: A Mutilated Concept of the Magisterium.
This error is contained in the incredible assertion concerning the Church's renunciation and condemnation of error:
The Church has always been opposed to these errors [i.e., false opinions of men-Ed.]; She has often condemned them with the greatest severity. Now, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to employ the medicine of mercy rather than that of harshness. She is going to meet today's needs by demonstrating the validity of Her doctrine, rather than by renewing condemnations.
With this renunciation of employing proper, God-given authority to defend the deposit of the faith and to help souls through condemning errors that ensnare souls and prevent their eternal salvation, Pope John XXIII kicked aside his duties as Vicar of Christ. In fact, condemning error is essential for maintaining the deposit of faith, which is the Pontiff's first duty, and with it, always confirming sound doctrine, thus demonstrating the efficacy of doing so with timely application. Moreover, from a pastoral point of view, condemning error is necessary because it supports and sustains the faithful, the well-educated as well as those less so, with the Magisterium's incomparable authority. By its exercise they are strengthened to defend themselves against error, whose "logic" is often astute and seductive. This is not the only point: condemning error can lead errant souls to repent, by placing the true sustenance of their intellect before them. The condemnation of error is, in and of itself, a work of mercy.
To hold that condemning error should never have occurred is to support a mutilated concept of the Church's Magisterium. In the main, the post-Vatican II Church, no longer condemning error, has substituted for it dialogue with those in error. This amounts to doctrinal error. Previously, the Church has always prosecuted dialogue with such errors and those in error. Pope John XXIII’s quote above denounces the error clearly: that demonstrating "doctrine's validity" is incompatible with "renewing condemnations." This is to suggest that such validity ought to be imposed only thanks to one's own intrinsic logic, and not from external authority. But in such an approach, faith would no longer be a gift from God, nor would there be any need of grace to fortify faith, nor any need to exercise the principle for sustaining faith via the authority in the Catholic Church. The essential error is concealed in Pope John XXIII's phraseology; it is a form of Pelagianism [i.e., that all men are, by nature, good-Ed.] which is typical of all "rationalistic conceptions" of the Faith, all of them repeatedly condemned by the Magisterium.
Not only heresies and theological errors in the strict sense have been objects of condemnation, but every one of the world's ideas that is not Catholic, not only those adverse to the Faith, but also those to whom Our Lord's words apply, "He who does not gather with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth" (Mt. 12:30).
The un-orthodox position taken by John XXIII, maintained by the Council and the post-Conciliar period has caused the collapse of the Church's ironclad armor. The Church's enemies-inside and out-appreciate this heterodox position. No doubt they agree with Nietzsche, who said: "The intellectual mark of the Church is essentially harsh inflexibility, by which the conception and judgment of values are treated as stable, as eternal."
SECOND ERROR: The Contamination of Catholic doctrine with Intrinsically Anti-Catholic "Modern Thinking"
Connected to this unprecedented renunciation of error is another flagrantly grave assertion made by John XXIII in his January 13, 1963, Christmas address to Cardinals. He said that "doctrinal penetration" must occur through "doctrine's more perfect adhesion to fidelity to true doctrine."
However, he followed this by explaining that
Quote:true doctrine ought to be expressed using the forms of investigation and literary style of modern thinking, since, to do so, is to sustain the depositum fidei's classic doctrine and is the way to recast it: and this ought to be done patiently, taking into great account that all must be expressed in forms and propositions having a predominantly pastoral character.1
Liberals and modernists had already long recommended that classical doctrine be re-cast in forms imported from "modern thinking." Doing so was specifically condemned by Pope Pius X in Pascendi2 and his decree Lamentabili which condemned the following:3- §63. The Church shows herself unequal to the task of preserving the ethics of the Gospel, because she clings obstinately to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with present day advances.
- §64. The progress of the sciences demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine about God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, the redemption, be recast. (Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, dz 2063, 2064)
In Humani Generis4 Pope Pius XII said the same thing. Thus, Pope John XXIII’s predecessors had condemned his proposed doctrine. This is a typical of all modernist errors.
In fact, it is not possible for the categories of "modern thinking" to be applied to Catholic doctrine. In all of its forms modern thinking negates-a priori- the existence of an absolute truth and holds that everything is relative to Man, who is his own absolute value, divinized in all of his manifestations, from instinct to "self-consciousness." This way of thinking is intrinsically opposed to the fundamental truths of the Catholic Church beginning with the idea of God the Creator, of a living God Who has been revealed and incarnated in His Second Person. In the end, modern thinking means only a politics and an ethic. By proposing a similar contamination, Pope John XXIII showed himself to be a disciple of the of the neo-modernists' "New Theology," already condemned by the Magisterium. Regarding the Catholic Church's salvation mission, the needs of the day required of the Second Vatican Council to reinforce the rejection of modern thinking found in the prior popes-from Pius IX to Pius XII. Instead, the Council gave full sway to "the study and expression" of "authentic" and "classic" doctrine via "modern thinking."
THIRD ERROR: The Church's Goal is the "Unity of Humanity."
The third error of the Opening Address announced that "the unity of humanity" was the Church's own and proper goal. This was advanced by the Second Vatican Council, which quoted St. Augustine (Ep. 138, 3) to purport that the Church be preparing and consolidating the way toward that human unity which is a fundamental necessity because the earthly City is constructed to always resemble the heavenly one "in which truth and the law of charity reign, and is the extension of the Eternal One.
Here "human unity" is seen as the "fundamental necessity because the earthly City is constructed to always resemble the heavenly one." But the Church never taught that her expansion in this world had "human unity" as her goal, as affirmed by Pope John XXIII, simply. On the contrary, this is the guiding idea of the Enlightenment's philosophy of history first elaborated by the 18th century by secularists. It is not of the Catholic Church, but is an essential component of the religion of Humanism.
The error consists in mixing the Catholic vision with an idea imported into it from secular thought. Secularists do not look to extend the Kingdom of God through that part of it realized on earth by the Catholic Church. This vision is a substitute for that of the Church's. Humanism is convinced of the dignity of man as man (since humanists do not believe in original sin) and of his supposed "rights."
Besides these three errors in the Opening Address, two more theological errors were proposed in what followed.
Errors in the Council Fathers' "Message to the World"
The "Message to the World" was promulgated at the start of the Council. [Archbishop Lefebvre was one of the few to criticize it.-Ed.] In miniature, it contained the pastoral line of thought that would be developed to the fullest in Gaudium et Spes. "Human good," the "dignity of man" as man, "peace between people," a pastoral in which the preoccupation with "human good," "the dignity of man," as man, "the peace between people," are its central concerns, and left aside is man's conversion to Christ:
Quote:While we hope that through the Council's labors the light of faith shines more clearly and alive, we await a spiritual renaissance from which also comes a happy impulse that favors human well-being, that is, scientific invention, progress of the arts, technology, and a greater diffusion of culture.
"Human well-being" is characterized according to the century's reigning ideas, i.e., scientific, artistic, technological, and cultural progress.5 Should the Second Vatican Council have become so preoccupied with such things? Should it have expressed hope for the increase of these solely earthly "blessings," always short-lived, often deceptive, in place of those eternal ones founded on perennial values taught by the Church over the centuries? No wonder that, following this brand of pastoral, instead of a new "splendor" of the faith, a grave and persistent crisis has arisen?
The actual theological error, in the proper sense of error, occurs at the close of the "Message to the World" where it is said: "We invite all to collaborate with us in order to install in the world a more well ordered civil life and a greater fraternity." This is not Catholic doctrine. Any anticipation of the eternal kingdom in this world was constituted only by the Catholic Church, by the visible Church Militant, the earthly element of the Mystical Body of Christ, which grows slowly, not withstanding the opposition of "the Prince of this world." The Mystical Body of Christ increases, but not strictly through the "union of all men of good will," and of all humanity under the banner of "progress."
Ambiguity
The texts of Vatican II are infamous for being ambiguous and contradictory. Suffice it by the following serious example to show how profound the ambiguity is.
Vatican II's Dei Verbum (on Divine Revelation) is called a "dogmatic constitution" because it concerns the inerrant truth of dogma. In §9, however, it expounds in an obviously insufficient and unclear way [or else, why the confusion presented in § 11 ?-Ed.] how the truths of the Faith rest on two pillars of revelation-Sacred Scripture and Tradition on the absolute inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and the total historical authenticity of the Gospels.6 In §11, Dei Verbum lends itself even to opposite interpretations, one of which would reduce inerrancy only to "truth...confided to the Sacred Scriptures....":
Quote:...Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures....(Dei Verbum, § lib, Nov. 18, 1965)
This is substantively equivalent to heresy because the absolute inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and the truth expounded there is the truth of the Faith constantly deduced and taught by the Church alone.
Contradictions
For an example of patent contradiction, let us look as §2 of the October 28, 1965 decree, Perfectae Caritatis (On the Up-to-Date Renewal of Religious Life). It states that the renewal of religious life Quote:"comprises both a constant return to the sources of the whole of the Christian life and to the primitive inspiration of the institutes, and the adaptation to the changed conditions of our time...."
This is a patent contradiction since, according to the three vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, the unique characteristic of religious life has always been that of being completely antithetical to the world, corrupted as it is by original sin and the very illustration of the fleeting and transient. How is it possible that the "return to the sources...and to the primitive inspiration of the [Catholic] institutes" be accomplished by their "adaptation to the changed conditions of our time?" Adaptation to these "conditions," which today are those of the secularized modern world of lay culture, are the very ones that impede, in themselves, "the return to the sources."
Paragraph 79 of Gaudium et Spes (On the Church in the Modern World, Dec. 7, 1965) grants governments the right "of lawful self-defense" to "defend the interests of the people." This substantively seems to conform to the traditional teaching of the Church, which has always granted the right of defense from an external or internal attack of the "just war" category, and conforms to the principles of natural rights. However, §82 of the same Gaudium et Spes also contains an absolute condemnation of war and, therefore, of every type of war, without making express exception for defensive war, justified three paragraphs earlier, which, then, the Council both permitted and condemned! Compare, yourself: first, the permission, then, the condemnation:- §79. War, of course, has not ceased to be part of the human scene. As long as the danger of war persists..., governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed. State leaders and all who share the burdens of public administration have the duty to defend the interests of their people and to conduct grave matters with a deep sense of responsibility....
- §82. It is our clear duty to spare no effort in order to work for the moment when all war will be completely outlawed by international agreement. This goal, or course, requires the establishment of a universally acknowledged public authority vested with the effective power to ensure security for all ....
Contradiction is also evident in Sacrosanctum Concilium (On the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Dec. 4, 1963) regarding the maintenance of Latin as the liturgical language. We read in - §36(1): "The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites." In the next line,
- §36(2). But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, in the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives, and in some prayers and chants. Regulations governing this will be given separately in subsequent chapters.
But the regulations "established" in this document are left to episcopal conferences:- §22(1). Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
- §22(2). In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops' conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories.
- This paragraph was given wide latitude. There are numerous cases where the Council authorized the partial or total use of the vernacular:
- and "the common prayer," and also, as local conditions may warrant, in those parts which pertain to the people, according to the rules laid down in §36 of the Constitution.... Wherever a more expanded use of the vernacular in the Mass seems desirable, the regulation laid down in §40 of the Constitution is to be observed. [Paragraph 40 discusses the procedure to be followed if "more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed," which "entails greater difficulties."-Ed]
- §62(a): In the administration of sacraments and sacramentals the vernacular may be used according to the norm of §36.
- §65. In the mission countries, in addition to what is furnished by the Christian tradition, those elements of initiation rites may be admitted which are already in use among some peoples... [e.g., rites which are certainly in the vernacular-Ed.].
- §68. The baptismal rite should contain variants, to be used at the discretion of the local ordinary—Likewise a shorter rite is to be drawn up, especially for mission countries…
- §76. Both the ceremonies and texts of the Ordination rites are to be revised. The addresses given by the bishop at the beginning of each ordination or consecration may be in the vernacular…
- §78. Matrimony is normally to be celebrated within the Mass after the reading of the Gospel and the homily before "the prayer of the faithful." The prayer for the bride, duly amended to remind both spouses of their equal obligation of mutual fidelity, may be said in the vernacular.
- §101(1). In accordance with the age-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power to grant the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be drawn up in accordance with the provisions of §36.
- §113. Liturgical worship is given a more noble form when the divine offices are celebrated solemnly in song with the assistance of sacred ministers and the active participation of the people. As regards the language to be used, the provisions of §36 are to be observed;…
Contrary to firmly maintaining the use of Latin, the Second Vatican Council seemed to be preoccupied with opening the greatest possible number of avenues for the vernacular and, by doing so, laid down the premises of its definitive victory in the post-Conciliar era.
Relevant Omissions
Among the Council's omissions, we shall limit ourselves to discussing the most relevant under two subtitles: five omissions on the dogmatic level and three on the pastoral level.
1. On the Dogmatic Level
On the dogmatic level, five points strike us:- the failure to condemn the major errors of the 20th century;
- the absence of the notion of supernaturality and lack of mention of Paradise;
- the absence of a specific treatment of hell, mentioned only once in passing (§48 of Lumen Gentium);
- the lack of mention of the dogmas of Transubstantiation and of the propitiatory character of the Holy Sacrifice [In those paragraphs of Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically expounding on the Holy Mass (§§30, 47, 106), there is a repeated failure to reinforce these dogmas.-Ed.];
- the disappearance of any mention of the idea of "the poor in spirit."
2. On the Pastoral Level
The following points come to our attention regarding omissions at this level:- in general, the absence of specifically Catholic treatments of such key notions as pastorality, the relation between Church and State, the ideal models of individual, family, and culture, etc.;
- the failure to condemn Communism, the greatest threat to Christendom, on which so much has been written. This failure was noticeable and resulted later in §75 of Gaudium et Spes which weakly and generically condemns "totalitarianism," putting it on the same level as "dictatorship":
Quote:...The understanding of the relationship between socialization and personal autonomy and progress will vary according to different areas and the development of peoples. However, if restrictions are imposed temporarily for the common good on the exercise of human rights, these restrictions are to be lifted as soon as possible after the situation has changed. In any case it is inhuman for public authority to fall back on totalitarian methods or dictatorship which violates the rights of persons or social groups. (Gaudium et Spes, §75[c]).
- The same omission reoccurs in §79 of the same document, in which the horrific crimes of the recent wars were addressed:
Quote:...Any action which deliberately violates these principles and any order which commands these actions is criminal, and blind obedience cannot excuse those who carry them out. The most infamous among these actions are those designed for the reasoned and methodical extermination of an entire race, nation, or ethnic minority. These must be condemned as frightful crimes; and we cannot commend too highly the courage of men who openly and fearlessly resist those who issue orders of this kind…
These 20th-century "methods" had been witnessed many times, for example, against the Christian Armenians (almost 70% exterminated by the Muslim Turks in the years before WWI) and by the neo-pagan Nazis. But such schemes were known also to have been performed by the Communists by their systematic physical annihilation of so-called "class enemies," that is, millions of individuals whose only crime was that of belonging to a social class deemed aristocratic, bourgeois, peasants-all extirpated in the name of a "classless society," Communism's Utopian goal. Clearly, in Gaudium et Spes (§79), "social class" exterminations should have been added. But the progressive wing that imposed itself on the Council guarded against this being done, proving itself politically left-wing. It did not want Marxism to be discussed as a doctrine born of Communism nor its actual political practice.
- the failure to condemn corrupt customs and hedonism, which had deeply spread within Western society.
- Canonicus
1.These concepts were specifically repeated by the Council in the decree, Unitatis Redintegratio on Ecumenism, article 6:
Every renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this is the basis of the movement toward unity.
Christ summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns here on earth. The Church is always in need of this, in so far as she is an institution of men here on earth. Thus if, in various times and circumstances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct or in Church discipline, or even in the way that Church teaching has been formulated to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself, these can and should be set right at the opportune moment.
Church renewal has therefore notable ecumenical importance. Already in various spheres of the Church's life, this renewal is taking place. The Biblical and liturgical movements, the preaching of the word of God and catechetics, the apostolate of the laity, new forms of religious life and the spirituality of married life, and the Church's social teaching and activity: all these should be considered as pledges and signs of the future progress of ecumenism.
2. Pascendi, 1907, §2, c.
3. Lamentabili, §§63, 64.
4. Humani Generis, AAS 1950, pp.565-566.
5. Gaudium et Spes, §§60-62.
6. Gaudium et Spes, §§53, 74, 76, etc.
|
|
|
|
| From the Archives: Statements by The Catacombs Concerning Ambrose Moran |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 10:51 AM - Forum: The Catacombs: News
- Replies (1)
|
|
Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe
December 12, 2018
On the Decision to [Temporarily] Halt Public Discussion on Ambrose Moran and his affiliation with OLMC
My dear friends,
After much thought and prayer, I have made a decision on the manner in which to proceed with the discussion regarding Bishop Ambrose Moran on The Catacombs.
But before I talk about that, let me first and foremost repeat the position of The Catacombs in its purpose and direction. It seems from a couple posts that perhaps it has become forgotten. I quote from the Welcome message at the top of every single page of the forum:
Quote:Welcome to The Catacombs
Following our Lord who said, “Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
We are Catholics born in the newest Catacomb within this grave crisis of the Church, stemming from the modernist revolution of Vatican II. A Revolution which has so encompassed and distorted the Catholic Faith throughout the four corners of the world so as to leave our Faith nearly obliterated. Our Lady had forewarned and lamented in La Salette and Fatima, “Souls will be lost…for not listening to my Son…His hand is heavy.”
The Catacombs Forum is but another voice rising from the underground of this crisis, hoping to imitate Our Lord in His example in choosing to come into this world from the lowly manger in the Cave. Born in nothing…to herald the greatness of His Father,“Gloria in excelsis Deo: Glory to God in the Highest!”
This forum was created in view of serving the needs of those who desire to remain true to the Catholic Traditions that Our Holy Mother Church has taught and handed down, especially through the guidance of our Lord’s servant, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. "Tradidi quod et accepi: I have handed down what I have received."
Upon the Rock of Christ conviction is set. May God bless our little effort that we offer for Him and His beautiful Mother.
The Catacombs Forum Rules
Only a few rules should be necessary among Catholics:
1. In all posts, there will only be allowed a prevailing spirit of charity. Persistent lack of charity in either posts or responding to the posts of others will result in being banned.
2. We focus on defined Church doctrine and Church teaching. We promote the apostolates of those bishops and priests who promulgate those doctrines and teachings. Promotion of clergy or laity who promote novel teachings is not allowed.
3. Movements and teachings as yet undefined by the Catholic Church, i.e. sedevacantism, will be cautiously tolerated but only to the extent that the errors of which, are pointed out.
With respect to Bishop Ambrose Moran, it is understood that OLMC is progressing towards a formal association with him. For ourselves and others who feel the same, there are doubts that linger and remain about his licitness and his character that have not been fully explained as yet by the OLMC Fathers. We look forward to this more complete explanation and a resolution of these doubts.
As we have mentioned previously, we are surrounded by valid bishops. That has never been the sole criterion upon which Resistance members have relied. If that was the case, many of us would never have left the SSPX in 2012. This discussion is much, much deeper than at the level of validity.
A word more about the Resistance. People who have been a part of the Resistance are there because of a deep love of the Faith. I think this is a point upon which we can all agree. It was this deep love for the Faith which forced them to place that Faith above persons and personalities in 2012 when they left the SSPX as it fell into modernism. This deep love of the Faith was again manifested when we did not join the false resistance and their bishops and adhered to the OLMC Fathers who preached the Faith uncompromised. We did this believing that God would provide a bishop in His good time.
In 2015, Bishop Ambrose Moran was introduced to us as a potential bishop the Resistance could work with. A veritable firestorm erupted almost immediately. Much of this firestorm had to do with many of Bishop Ambrose's claims being called into question in terms of their veracity and pictures appearing altered. Much could be said about this but that is not our intention at this time. Within a few short months, the OLMC Fathers disassociated with Bishop Ambrose when “he decided to canonically direct the seminary” as Fr. Pfeiffer mentioned in his second conference.
In 2018, Bishop Ambrose is again being reintroduced to us as a potential bishop. He is no longer interested in directing jurisdiction over OLMC we have been told. In July of 2018 he was utilized to re-ordain Fr. Poisson. In the months since that time there have been many questions and concerns that were reintroduced after they were dropped in 2015 when we were told that OLMC was not associating. But now they are again brought forward and again are a concern and a worry. Fr. Pfeiffer has given two conferences these past months to try to alleviate those concerns. But for some, this was only partially done.
It is because of our deep love of the Faith, of having fought for the Faith that many are careful and wish to have their doubts clarified and explained before absolute acceptance of Bishop Ambrose Moran. For some, they have already spoken at greater length to the Fathers, have had their questions answered but feel that they cannot go forward in accepting him as coming from God to be the bishop of the Resistance. Others are completely at peace with this association of Bishop Ambrose and OLMC. As we all know, it is an intensely personal decision.
With respect to The Catacombs, I have decided to close the public discussion down. It has been brought to my attention from multiple souls that several of the posts regarding Bishop Ambrose are creating scandal. A Catholic apostolate should bring souls to God and not drive them away by intimidating the weaker ones with vitriol and conflation. Those most in favor of Bishop Ambrose are doing great harm to his cause by the attacks against anyone who disagrees with them. It is making people turn away in disgust from the whole issue. Frs. Pfeiffer and Hewko have taught us better than this. The Church, in Her saints, have taught us better than this. And most importantly, Our Lord Himself has taught us better than this.
So in the interest of not creating more scandal and confusion, in the interest of letting the fruits of this association be made manifest more clearly and without distraction, The Catacombs will not publicize this confusion regarding Bishop Ambrose Moran. I have given Bishop Ambrose his own sub-board on the forum. The threads have been moved there and will remain available for all to see the arguments for and against this association. Any future conferences on this matter will be posted here as well.
I know that there are several members of this forum who have their own websites, especially among those who have been posting the most consistently on this subject. Perhaps if there are those who feel this deserves additional responses those sites can be utilized.
We all have to give an accounting to God on the day of our judgment for every bit of scandal we have either created or allowed.
"In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." Ecclesiasticus 7:40
It is with this thought in mind that my decision has been made.
God bless you all on this beautiful feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. May She who crushes the head of the serpent, guide us, poor pilgrims, on the narrow and thorn-strewn road to Her Divine Son.
|
|
|
|
| Pope joins with global companies to promote capitalism in line with UN’s pro-abortion goals |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 10:08 AM - Forum: Global News
- Replies (1)
|
|
Pope joins with global companies to promote capitalism in line with UN’s pro-abortion goals
The new partnership aligns the Vatican with the UN, which supports 'universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services' such as contraception and abortion.
VATICAN CITY, December 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis joined forces with major global corporations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and Bank of America to promote a new “economic system” of capitalism based on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
Launched on December 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, the Vatican partnership with the “Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican” is apparently a response to Pope Francis’s desire “to build inclusive and sustainable economies and societies.” The Council describes itself as “a movement of the world’s business and public sector leaders who are working to build a more inclusive, sustainable, and trusted economic system that addresses the needs of our people and the planet.”
A press release on the group’s website hailed the news as “historic,” adding that the group is “inspired by the moral imperative of all faiths.” The new partnership “signifies the urgency of joining moral and market imperatives to reform capitalism into a powerful force for the good of humanity.”
“The Council invites companies of all sizes to harness the potential of the private sector to build a fairer, more inclusive and sustainable economic foundation for the world,” the statement added.
The Council is headed by the self-styled “Guardians for Inclusive Capitalism,” titans of business with “more than $10.5 trillion in assets under management, companies with over $2.1 trillion of market capitalization, and 200 million workers in over 163 countries.” They meet annually with both Pope Francis and Cardinal Peter Turkson.
Among the 27 Guardians are CEOs, chairmen, presidents, and other high ranking officials from companies such as Mastercard, DuPont, the U.N, Johnson & Johnson, VISA, BP, Bank of America, and The Rockefeller Foundation.
According to its own guiding principles, the Council declares that “capitalism must evolve to promote a more sustainable, trusted, equitable, and inclusive system that works for everyone.” Its various members must commit to “promoting sustainable, inclusive, strong and trusted economies around the world,” saying it will “define and implement” its various actions.
The numerous commitments of the Council are divided into four categories: “People, Planet, Principles of Governance, Prosperity.” As part of its overall vision, the Council proposes “Equality of opportunity for all people to pursue prosperity and quality of life, irrespective of criteria such as socio-economic background, gender, ethnicity, religion or age.”
A number of companies' commitments reflect this, with specific policies relating to net carbon emissions and racial issues.
All actions, however, are fundamentally to promote “environmental, social, and governance measures” in order to “achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.” The Council “challenges business and investment leaders of all sizes” to adopt its principles.
Pope Francis previously expressed support for the U.N’s Goals, despite the U.N. calling for “universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programs,” which includes contraception and abortion.
Speaking to the Council for Inclusive Capitalism, Pope Francis said, “An economic system that is fair, trustworthy, and capable of addressing the most profound challenges facing humanity and our planet is urgently needed. You have taken up the challenge by seeking ways to make capitalism become a more inclusive instrument for integral human wellbeing.”
Lynn Forester de Rothschild, founding and managing partner of Inclusive Capital Partners and of whom the Council is the brainchild, said in a statement, “Capitalism has created enormous global prosperity, but it has also left too many people behind, led to degradation of our planet, and is not widely trusted in society. This Council will follow the admonishment of Pope Francis to listen to ‘the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor’ and answer society’s demands for a more equitable and sustainable model of growth.”
Forbes noted the irony of the news, since the very people whom the Pope is partnering with are “the people that the pope points to when he calls out wealth inequality.”
Alliance as a part of the Pope’s Great Reset support?
This latest alliance between the Vatican and global corporations would appear to be the next step in the Pope’s desire to conform global politics to the United Nations. In 2019, he made a speech advocating for globalist world practices, calling for “globalization to be beneficial for all.”
Referring to a “supranational common good,” the Pope added that “there is need for a special legally constituted authority capable of facilitating its implementation.”
The Pope once again signaled his concern that the U.N Sustainable Development Goals be implemented. “There is a risk of compromising already established forms of international cooperation, undermining the aims of international organizations as a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries on a level of mutual respect, and hindering the achievement of the sustainable development goals unanimously approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September 2015.”
Earlier this year at an event called “New Forms of Solidarity,” the Pope spoke to national finance ministers as well as the director of the International Monetary Fund. He suggested that “We have to choose what and who to prioritize.”
Pope Francis will now be able to directly affect such global policy and financial decisions since the Council’s alliance with the Vatican means that it is now under the “moral guidance” of the Pope.
Only days ago, Pope Francis used the phrase build back better,” the slogan that has become synonymous with globalist polices. The phrase is the name of Joe Biden’s website, BuildBackBetter.gov, on which he claims to be “restoring American leadership.”
LifeSite’s Patrick Delaney noted in a Nov. 2 report how Biden’s campaign plans align with a radical international socialist plan called “The Great Reset.” Globalist elites have characterized the “Great Reset” as a plan to "push the reset button" on the global economy.
Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, is a prominent proponent of the Great Reset, stating, “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.” Schwab has published a book titled “COVID-19:The Great Reset,” in which he outlines the “changes” necessary for a more “sustainable world going forward.”
LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen has also noted that Pope Francis’s opinion piece published in The New York Times on Thanksgiving Day “echoed the sentiments of Joe Biden and other pushers of the so-called Great Reset, calling for the world to ‘build a better, different, human future.'”
The Pope’s piece “reads like a page from Biden’s Build Back Better campaign,” commented Westen. He pointed out that the name of “Jesus” or “Christ” never appears in the piece, and “God” is mentioned only once, assisting in the push for the new agenda.
|
|
|
|
| Pope joins with global companies to promote capitalism in line with UN’s pro-abortion goals |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 10:08 AM - Forum: Great Reset
- No Replies
|
|
Pope joins with global companies to promote capitalism in line with UN’s pro-abortion goals
The new partnership aligns the Vatican with the UN, which supports 'universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services' such as contraception and abortion.
VATICAN CITY, December 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis joined forces with major global corporations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and Bank of America to promote a new “economic system” of capitalism based on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
Launched on December 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, the Vatican partnership with the “Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican” is apparently a response to Pope Francis’s desire “to build inclusive and sustainable economies and societies.” The Council describes itself as “a movement of the world’s business and public sector leaders who are working to build a more inclusive, sustainable, and trusted economic system that addresses the needs of our people and the planet.”
A press release on the group’s website hailed the news as “historic,” adding that the group is “inspired by the moral imperative of all faiths.” The new partnership “signifies the urgency of joining moral and market imperatives to reform capitalism into a powerful force for the good of humanity.”
“The Council invites companies of all sizes to harness the potential of the private sector to build a fairer, more inclusive and sustainable economic foundation for the world,” the statement added.
The Council is headed by the self-styled “Guardians for Inclusive Capitalism,” titans of business with “more than $10.5 trillion in assets under management, companies with over $2.1 trillion of market capitalization, and 200 million workers in over 163 countries.” They meet annually with both Pope Francis and Cardinal Peter Turkson.
Among the 27 Guardians are CEOs, chairmen, presidents, and other high ranking officials from companies such as Mastercard, DuPont, the U.N, Johnson & Johnson, VISA, BP, Bank of America, and The Rockefeller Foundation.
According to its own guiding principles, the Council declares that “capitalism must evolve to promote a more sustainable, trusted, equitable, and inclusive system that works for everyone.” Its various members must commit to “promoting sustainable, inclusive, strong and trusted economies around the world,” saying it will “define and implement” its various actions.
The numerous commitments of the Council are divided into four categories: “People, Planet, Principles of Governance, Prosperity.” As part of its overall vision, the Council proposes “Equality of opportunity for all people to pursue prosperity and quality of life, irrespective of criteria such as socio-economic background, gender, ethnicity, religion or age.”
A number of companies' commitments reflect this, with specific policies relating to net carbon emissions and racial issues.
All actions, however, are fundamentally to promote “environmental, social, and governance measures” in order to “achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.” The Council “challenges business and investment leaders of all sizes” to adopt its principles.
Pope Francis previously expressed support for the U.N’s Goals, despite the U.N. calling for “universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programs,” which includes contraception and abortion.
Speaking to the Council for Inclusive Capitalism, Pope Francis said, “An economic system that is fair, trustworthy, and capable of addressing the most profound challenges facing humanity and our planet is urgently needed. You have taken up the challenge by seeking ways to make capitalism become a more inclusive instrument for integral human wellbeing.”
Lynn Forester de Rothschild, founding and managing partner of Inclusive Capital Partners and of whom the Council is the brainchild, said in a statement, “Capitalism has created enormous global prosperity, but it has also left too many people behind, led to degradation of our planet, and is not widely trusted in society. This Council will follow the admonishment of Pope Francis to listen to ‘the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor’ and answer society’s demands for a more equitable and sustainable model of growth.”
Forbes noted the irony of the news, since the very people whom the Pope is partnering with are “the people that the pope points to when he calls out wealth inequality.”
Alliance as a part of the Pope’s Great Reset support?
This latest alliance between the Vatican and global corporations would appear to be the next step in the Pope’s desire to conform global politics to the United Nations. In 2019, he made a speech advocating for globalist world practices, calling for “globalization to be beneficial for all.”
Referring to a “supranational common good,” the Pope added that “there is need for a special legally constituted authority capable of facilitating its implementation.”
The Pope once again signaled his concern that the U.N Sustainable Development Goals be implemented. “There is a risk of compromising already established forms of international cooperation, undermining the aims of international organizations as a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries on a level of mutual respect, and hindering the achievement of the sustainable development goals unanimously approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 25 September 2015.”
Earlier this year at an event called “New Forms of Solidarity,” the Pope spoke to national finance ministers as well as the director of the International Monetary Fund. He suggested that “We have to choose what and who to prioritize.”
Pope Francis will now be able to directly affect such global policy and financial decisions since the Council’s alliance with the Vatican means that it is now under the “moral guidance” of the Pope.
Only days ago, Pope Francis used the phrase build back better,” the slogan that has become synonymous with globalist polices. The phrase is the name of Joe Biden’s website, BuildBackBetter.gov, on which he claims to be “restoring American leadership.”
LifeSite’s Patrick Delaney noted in a Nov. 2 report how Biden’s campaign plans align with a radical international socialist plan called “The Great Reset.” Globalist elites have characterized the “Great Reset” as a plan to "push the reset button" on the global economy.
Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, is a prominent proponent of the Great Reset, stating, “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.” Schwab has published a book titled “COVID-19:The Great Reset,” in which he outlines the “changes” necessary for a more “sustainable world going forward.”
LifeSite’s John-Henry Westen has also noted that Pope Francis’s opinion piece published in The New York Times on Thanksgiving Day “echoed the sentiments of Joe Biden and other pushers of the so-called Great Reset, calling for the world to ‘build a better, different, human future.'”
The Pope’s piece “reads like a page from Biden’s Build Back Better campaign,” commented Westen. He pointed out that the name of “Jesus” or “Christ” never appears in the piece, and “God” is mentioned only once, assisting in the push for the new agenda.
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko: 2018 - 2019 - On Ambrose Moran |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:54 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- Replies (5)
|
|
The following notable posts and threads are taken from the Archived Catacombs:
Father begins speaking about Bishop(?) Ambrose at minute mark: 09:50 and finishes at minute mark: 21:40:
Highlights:- Fr. Hewko exhorts us to pray first and foremost to pray to know God's will, that we ask God to show us clearly His will in this matter, so there is no doubt and no question.
- He notes that there are some objective, reasonable concerns surrounding Bp. Ambrose.
- Fr. Hewko spoke about the openness of Archbishop Lefebvre in discussing his plans and concerns over the years. The investigation should be handled as the Archbishop handled things in responding to the concerns of the faithful.
- He reminds us that Fr. Pfeiffer is still conducting his investigation. Fr. Hewko also reminds us that any thorough investigation takes times and should not be done hastily, that this investigation should go very slow, weighing things carefully.
+ + +
Comments from the member O.L. of Fatima Chapel, exactly one year after this sermon:
Quote:When Fr. Hewko delivered that sermon here at Our Lady of Fatima Chapel in Massachusetts, he addressed the great trepidation and anxiety of the faithful by announcing his own grave reservations regarding the legitimacy of William Moran. And then, as S.A.G mentioned, Father requested everyone's prayers. So, a special novena to Our Lady of the Rosary was promptly organized; and soon the suspicions of fraudulence were confirmed, as important nuggets of information slowly came to light - like an onion's layers being peeled away! And isn't this how our heavenly Mother usually works? As Father himself later stated: it was all attributed to the power of Our Lady of the Rosary. The novena began in October - the month of the Holy Rosary, and then Father began his new mission of The Sorrowful Heart of Mary this past February 11th - the feast of Lourdes.
We continue to offer great thanks to Almighty God through the intercession of His Immaculate Mother, for granting Father the special graces of clarity and resolve to stand up for the truths of the Faith and assist the faithful in avoiding occasions of doubt ...all the while continuing the authentic mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. May the Immaculata guide and protect us always!
Regina Sacratissimi Rosarii - Ora pro nobis
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko: 2017 Fr. Hewko - The French Revolution and the Juring Priests |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:46 AM - Forum: Sermons by Date
- No Replies
|
|
Fr. Hewko makes several important points in this excellent sermon:
He starts out by talking about the Vendée, he notes that there were three main tactics against the Vendée that were implemented when massacring and fighting them in the field were not successful.
The first was that they attempted to use their own priests against them. They convinced a few compromising priests to sign an oath to the Masonic French government. They then sent these 'juring' priests back to the Vendée– to preach peace to the Vendée people and get them to lay down their arms. But these good people would not receive these priests and would not attend their Masses. In our times, these were the Fraternity of St. Peter. They were sent to confuse and pull away souls from the SSPX. They would say the same Latin Mass, wear the same vestments, but they were wolves in sheep's clothing as they were infected with a modernist Conciliar Church spirit.
When this first tactic was not successful, the second tactic implemented was the Masonic government itself attempted to strike a peace agreement with the Vendée Catholics. This is similar to the Conciliar Church making overtures to the SSPX to get them to become regularized and stop fighting for Tradition.
The third tactic was to take out the leadership of the Vendée. They did this by making a massive manhunt for the last Vendée general, General Charette. With a wide swath of soldiers, they hunted and eventually caught General Charette and eventually executed him. This is the Conciliar Church trying to get the last of the Resistors. (Those priests and faithful who saw through the charade and speak out against it. - Any thoughts who these could be?)
[...]
I am pleased to hear him explain the details, to reveal the similar maneuvering now in Catholic tradition.
Just as U.S. American history school books and movies leave out the truth and important facts concerning the involvement of Freemasonry, so too in France, Spain, Mexico and no doubt other countries do too.
A 70 plus yr. old Novis Ordo Catholic neighbor who was born, raised, and educated in France was surprised when she recently read some books on the Vendée to learn about the uprising of the Catholics there. Her sister who still lives in the Vendée region wasn't aware of this part of their history. She knew when she read it, that it was true. She purchased more of the books to have her family read them to know the truth. Her grandson is a history teacher and he also wanted the same books as he told her he never read about the Vendée uprising in all his years of history study.
Unless people know history, they find it had to believe when it's happening right in front of them. However even if they do know the history, when they are attached to personalities of some people involved they can refuse to believe it.
Archbishop Lefebvre wrote of the parallel between the crisis in the Church and the French Revolution noting that it is not simply a metaphorical one, but because they do not see blood flowing, many do not believe.
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko: 2013 Letter - 'One Does Not Play with the Faith!' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:35 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- No Replies
|
|
“ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!” - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
By Fr. David Hewko
November 8, 2013
Feast of Four Crowned Martyrs
1. COMMON OBJECTION: “But Abp. Lefebvre never rejected the Protocol of May 5, 1988! In fact, he was pleased with most of its contents except for the fact that Rome didn’t give him a bishop for consecrating. The April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration was similar to it.”
REPLY: Let the holy Archbishop speak for himself:
• When asked what he thought about Dom Gerard accepting the proposals of the Pope, he said, “At our last meeting, he asked me if I could accept the Protocol [of May 5, 1988] THAT I MYSELF REFUSED...We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council, we must not have a relationship with them!”(Controverses, No. 0, September 1988, Le Rocher No. 84).
• Regarding the May 5, 1988 Protocol…”If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais p. 555).
• Our true believers—those who understand the problem—feared the steps I took with Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute that Rome has to show a little bit of loyalty. One cannot blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, to those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have gone! (Abp. Lefebrve, 1990, Fideliter, No. 79, p. 11).
• “I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions. You are working to de-Christianize society, the human person and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p. 548).
• “Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign [the May 5, 1988 Protocol] that you accept everything; and then you can continue as before!’ No! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”…To ask this of us is to ask us to collaborate in the disappearance of the Faith. Impossible!” (They Have Uncrowned Him, Abp. Lefebvre, ch. 31, p. 230).
2. COMMON OBJECTION: “But Bp. Fellay just imitated the Archbishop! He sought a possible agreement, signed some documents, realized Rome wasn’t cooperative, and wouldn’t accept the Second Vatican Council and the New Mass. So things are back to square one!”
REPLY: Firstly, Abp. Lefebvre had hopes, with traditional-minded Cardinals in Rome to bear some influence on the Pope (i.e., Cardinals Oddi, Bacchi, Ottaviani, Gagnon, etc.). They’re all dead now.
Secondly, Abp. Lefebvre did not sign a DOCTRINAL Declaration (a Protocol was a preliminary step) excusing Vatican II, saying it “deepens” and “enlightens” certain aspects of Church doctrine, and doctrines “not yet conceptually formulated.” He did not sign a document saying that religious liberty and “other affirmations of Vatican II must be understood in the light of the whole uninterrupted Tradition.” That the New Mass and New Sacraments are legitimately promulgated, the New Code and New Profession of Faith are acceptable. These he never would have signed!
3. COMMON OBJECTION: “Since the October 13, 2013 Conference of Bishop Fellay things are back to normal, seeing that he called the New Mass “bad,” that “we don’t accept the Council,” etc.
REPLY: Did these optimists forget the principle of non-contradiction? “A thing cannot be and not be at the same time in the same place.” If Bp. Fellay really didn’t want an agreement, then why does the General Chapter Statement and 6 Conditions, binding the SSPX to seek an agreement, still exist officially in writing? (This, to the exclusion of Abp. Lefebvre’s most prudent principle, namely, “No agreement until Rome comes back to Tradition). In other words, the “For Sale” sign is still on the front lawn of the SSPX, regardless of how much “verbal fog” there is! For decrees of such weight, they must be cancelled out with decrees of equal weight. The Faith is being played with, here, and that means eternal souls! A General Chapter to rectify the errors and publicly reject all the compromises, is absolutely necessary. Along with this, a Statement publicly announcing the same, with the public rejection of the 6 Conditions and April 15, 2012 Document to prove the “conversion” to the old position of the SSPX.
4. COMMON OBJECTION: “But the April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration was ‘withdrawn’! It’s a dead letter!”
REPLY: To “withdraw” (for a time) is not the same thing as to publicly reject, retract and correct. If it is truly withdrawn, in the sense of “withdrawn forever,” then why was it printed in the March, 2013 Cor Unum showing all the priests that it is, indeed, official? Why is Fr. Daniel Themann’s Conference in St. Marys, Kansas on April 16, 2013 that justifies the April 15th Doctrinal Declaration, still being promoted worldwide? If it is true that “things are back to normal now” then where’s the apologies (or better, gratitude) to the Bishop and priests who were expelled and silenced? At least a
home and health insurance can be given back to some of the Resistance priests in their 70’s who warned the Superiors of the SSPX that this is all a danger to the Faith. Where’s the public retraction to the liberal statements in Interviews that continue to be quoted in recent SSPX articles, such as “95% of the Council is acceptable” (on September 3, 2013); or, “Religious Liberty of the Council is limited” (in fact, it’s a heresy condemned many times by the Pre-Council Popes); or “the errors of the Council are not really from the Council but from the general interpretation of it?”
5. COMMON OBJECTION: “You SSPX, Marian Corps Resistance priests are just exaggerating matters and making mountains out of mole hills!”
REPLY: The Roman Catholic Faith comes from above. Christ the King is not an option! Public Revelation must be believed to save our souls. If anyone, be he pope, bishop or priest compromises or puts the Faith in danger, then, like St. Paul to St. Peter, there had better be a strong resistance and
opposition!
St. Thomas Aquinas warned that inferiors have a duty to publicly rebuke superiors who play with the Faith, Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. de Castro Meyer were the only two, out of 2,300 bishops in the world, to openly resist the Vatican II Popes, in defense of Catholic Tradition.
If playing with the Faith endangers one’s eternity and placing the one True Faith (outside of which there is no salvation) in serious danger (by the liberal compromises in the documents and 6 Conditions officially signed and sent from Menzingen to Modernist Rome) then, truly, every single baptized Catholic is obliged to resist and demand more than a mere verbal: “I didn’t mean it.”
It’s a contradiction to say one rejects Vatican II, when the official documents from Menzingen say the 2nd Vatican Council is only “tainted with errors,” and accept the Council as “deepening” and “enlightening” Catholic Tradition (cf. General Chapter Statement and Doctrinal Declaration 2012).
It’s a contradiction to say the New Mass is “bad” when the official documents signed by the Superior General and Assistants declare it’s “legitimately promulgated”! (Which is the same as declaring it “legitimate,” …which is one step from celebrating it!).
It’s a contradiction to say with passing words that “things are back to the way they were under Abp. Lefebvre” when the 2012 documents clearly express a desire of openness to the Conciliar Church, as long as they grant us our Traditional Altars in the Ecumenical Pantheon, (cf. 1st Sine Qua Non Condition). Or, as the notorious General Chapter Statement of July 14, 2012 put it: “We have DETERMINED and APPROVED the necessary conditions for an eventual CANONICAL NORMALIZATION,” regardless of Rome’s return to Tradition!
It’s a contradiction for the Superior General to say in the Sydney, Australia Conference in August, 2012, explaining that he SIGNED the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012; and he also said, “This text…I was told—the Pope was satisfied with it.” And to say in his October Conference of 2013 that he did not sign it. Either this is a true lapse of memory or a bold lie. What are we to think?
It’s a contradiction to try to use Abp. Lefebvre to defend the new liberal ideas presented in the documents sent to Rome, when he clearly opposed such a direction, especially in his last three years. In fact, he laid down clear guidelines for every future Superior General to follow: “…Supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. […] I will place the discussion at the DOCTRINAL LEVEL: ‘Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE DOCTRINE OF YOUR PREDECESSORS, IT IS USELESS TO TALK!” (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter, Nov-Dec 1988).
These are the clear-cut conditions Abp. Lefebvre laid down, but these were abandoned for the more complying 6 Conditions…all in the name of “prudence”! As he himself frequently preached “…One does not dialogue with Error, with the Freemasons, with the Destroyers of Christ’s Social Reign and their father, the Devil!” (Abp. Lefebvre, Sermon in Martingy, December 8, 1984).
If people’s bank accounts were played with the way the True Faith is now, there would be a universal outcry. How much more should we love Christ, the True God, more than filthy lucre? How must we, sons of Martyrs, be up in arms with anyone who dares to play with the Faith as a negotiating item for steps towards an agreement, with authorities that crush the Faith! (Let it be noted well, Pope Benedict XVI was far more successful in this deception than even the reigning Pope Francis!).
Enough. Let the father have the last words:
Why I Refused to Put Myself in their Hands – Archbishop Lefebvre
Interview w/ CONTROVERSES
CONTROVERSES: Archbishop, the consecrations that you performed last June 30th have raised quite a stir. Curiously, it is not the “silent” faithful, but the main spokesmen of various traditional associations that have expressed their disapproval of your decision to ensure the future of Tradition. How do you explain their declarations of unwavering commitment to the See of Peter?
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE: Actually, I do not really see which traditional associations expressed their disapproval of the consecrations. In general, the people who expressed their disapproval were not entirely with us and were not attending our organization, but had a certain sympathy for Tradition while professing unconditional submission to Rome. It is imperative to know that today Rome is at the service of the revolution and therefore terribly anti-traditional.
That is why I refused to put myself in their hands. They only wanted that, by recognizing my mistakes, I help them continue their revolution in the Church – no more, no less. All those who have left us are not aware of the situation and believe in the good will and the rectitude of thought of the bishops or cardinals in Rome. Nothing is further from the truth! ‘It is not possible for them to lead us into the revolution,’ say those who agree with the Pope and his bishops. Well, that is exactly what will happen.
C: In some newspapers like 30 Jours dans l’Eglise and Le Monde, Vie actuelle and others, Cardinals Ratzinger and Oddi gave interviews in which they admit, to cite just Cardinal Oddi, that “you had not been wrong on all counts,” which makes some people say that there is a certain change inside the Roman curia. What is your opinion?
ABL: If we read the interview of Cardinal Ratzinger, we must from now on take care to apply the Council properly, not to err in its application and be careful not to repeat the errors that we might have made. He does not speak about changing its principles. Even if he comes to the point of admitting that the fruits of the last council are not the ones he expected, he opts to go back to the basic principles and to do it in a way in which there will be no more difficulty in the future. Thus, they did not understand what the return to Tradition that we are demanding means, and consequently they do not want to return to the Tradition of the predecessors of John XXIII.
C: These days, we often hear about “living Tradition.” What do you think is the meaning of this expression?
ABL: Well, let us take the condemnation of us that the pope made in the Moto Proprio.[ii] This condemnation is based on “an erroneous concept of Tradition.” In fact, the pope, in the Motu Proprio, condemns us because we do not accept “living Tradition.” But the way in which this “living Tradition” is understood was condemned by Saint Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi against modernism, because it entails an evolution based on history, which destroys the notion of dogma, defined for always.
Tradition, according to them, is something that lives and evolves. This “living Tradition” is now the Vatican II Church. It is very serious and denotes a modernist spirit. This new doctrine, because that is what it is, is formally condemned by Pope Saint Pius X. The Church carries Tradition with it. We cannot say something contrary to that which the popes declared in the past. We cannot allow such a thing. It is impossible.
C: Do you think this is why, for last twenty years or so, there have been no more acts of infallibility?
ABL: For the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI did not use the principle of dogmatic infallibility. He was satisfied with declaring it pastoral. The conciliar popes are unable to use their doctrinal infallibility because the very foundation of infallibility is to believe that a truth must be fixed forever and can no longer change: it must remain as it is. John Paul II, even more than Paul VI, does not believe in the immutability of truth.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950. It is now an immutable dogma. For them, no! Over time, there are new scientific explanations, developments of the human mind, progress that alters truth. Therefore, one could possibly say something other than what the popes have said. In an interview with Pope John Paul II, I asked him if he accepted the encyclical Quas Primas of Pius XI, on the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He replied, “I think the Pope would not write it in the same way today.” These are our current leaders. We certainly cannot put ourselves in their hands.
C: Among those who have accepted the proposals of the Pope, there is Dom Gérard. What do you personally think of his decision?
ABL: At our last meeting, he asked me if he could accept the protocol that I myself refused. I told him that his situation was not the same as mine, that the Society has spread throughout the world, while he is responsible only for his monastery. “You may be able to defend yourselves more easily. But I am not for an agreement. I believe that at present, an agreement is bad.”
And I even wrote to him. We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council; we must not have a relationship with them. Dom Gérard replied that his case was different and that he would try anyway. I do not approve. The last time that we saw each other, I told him:
Quote:“Dom Gérard, you will do what you want, and I will say what I want. For the people, your submission to Roman authority is your separation from Écône and Archbishop Lefebvre. From now on, you will seek your support from other bishops. Up to this point, you turned to me; well, now it is over. I consider you like I do the priests who have left us. We will no longer have a relationship because you have dealings with those who persecute us. You have put yourself in other hands.”
Five years ago already, Dom Gerard made a statement in his newsletter to benefactors in which he said that he wanted to be more open to those who are not like us, to no longer remain in sterile criticism, to receive everyone in the hope of having them participate in Tradition. This he did, and now he is a prisoner of all these people, of these writers, the media, teachers, like Bruckberger, Raspail; he preferred them to us. He is now in the hands of modernists.
C: How do you judge the proposals made to the Prior of the monastery of Barroux?
ABL: For them, their goal is to divide Tradition. They already have Dom Augustin,[iii] they have de Blignières,[iv] and now they have Dom Gérard. This weakens our position still further. It is their goal: divide to make us disappear.
Cardinal Ratzinger said in an interview given to a Frankfurt newspaper that it is unacceptable that there are groups of Catholics who are attached to Tradition in such a way that they are no longer in perfect agreement with that which all the bishops of the world think. They do not want to admit our existence. They cannot tolerate us in the Church. Dom Gérard does not want to believe this.
C: Marc Dem just published a beautiful book dedicated to Dom Gérard and his work. This publication seems to come at a bad time for the Prior, who is described in it as one of the pillars of the reconstruction of Christianity, faithful to Tradition and to Your Excellency.
ABL: I congratulated Dom Gérard for this book and he replied, “Do not talk to me about it, I do not want to hear about it, it is not I who wrote it, it is Marc Dem.” All this because Marc Dem presented Dom Gérard as he was originally, as a soldier and fighter for the Faith.
C: Contacts with Rome are not broken. It even appears that talks could resume this fall. Can you talk about that?
ABL: These are fabrications. If ever there were a willingness from Rome to resume discussions, this time, I will be the one to set down the conditions. As Cardinal Oddi said, “Archbishop Lefebvre is in a strong position.” That is why I will demand that the discussions concern doctrinal points. They have to stop with their ecumenism, they have to bring back the true meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring back the Catholic meaning of collegiality, and so on.
I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of religious liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus (Pius IX). They must accept all this, because this is from now on the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.
C: In conclusion, after all the events of this summer, what advice do you give your faithful?
ABL: The only goal that the faithful must have in front of them is the universal reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over individuals, families, cities; there is no other religion that can remain under this reign.
If it happens that I teach you something other than this, do not listen to me. As Saint Paul says: “If an angel from heaven or myself would teach you a doctrine contrary to what I taught you before, do not follow me, let me be anathema.” The good Catholic sense of our faithful has made it that 90% - and still more, I think – continue to follow us. This was confirmed by the pontificate of Benedict XVI, which has never ceased to defend the same line.
[ii] The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth". But it is especially a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church, belonging to the Bishop of Rome and to the main body of Bishops, that is contradictory. No one can remain faithful to Tradition while breaking the ecclesial link with him to whom Christ, in the person of the apostle Peter, entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church. (Apostolic letter "Ecclesia Dei" of the supreme pontiff John Paul II, given Motu Proprio, July 2, 1988, No. 4)
[iii] Dom Augustin-Marie Joly (1917-2006), founder of the Abbey of Saint-Joseph de Clairval, in Flavigny, recognized as a monastery of diocesan right on February 2, 1988.
[iv] Fr. Louis-Marie de Blignières founded the Society of Saint Vincent Ferrer in 1979. In 1987, this community within the traditional sphere of influence, “realizing that their doctrinal position on the issue of religious liberty in Vatican II was not correct,” took steps toward Rome in order to try to obtain canonical recognition. Following the consecrations of 1988, their small group was recognized as a Religious Institute of Pontifical Right. (cf. Fr. Dominique-Marie de Saint Laumer, new prior of the Society of Saint Vincent Ferrer as of September 2011, in La Nef No. 239, July –August 2012).
“Let us not set foot in the opposing camp, because we would thus be giving the enemy a proof of our weakness, which the enemy would try to interpret as a sign of weakness and a mark of complicity!”
---St. Pius X
FOOTNOTES
1. Learn from the enemy, as well! A Modernist, Cardinal Decourtray, known for his friendly ties with leading Freemasons, had this revealing comment on December 4, 1988 at a meeting held in Lourdes, France: “If Abp. Lefebvre had confirmed the signature given on May 5, 1988, it would have shown that he was willing to accept all of Vatican II, along with the authority of the current Pope and local bishops it united. In fact, if Abp. Lefebvre did not accept the Protocol proposed to him, it is precisely because he suddenly understood its real meaning. ‘They wanted to deceive us,’ he said. That meant: ‘They wanted us to accept the Council!’” (Card. Decourtray, Progress in Fidelity to the Council, Bishops’ Meeting in Lourdes, Dec. 4, 1988).
Also, speaking of the compromising declaration that the ex-SSPX priests joining St. Peter’s Fraternity had to sign in 1988, the same Cardinal said: “The diverse points of this declaration are nearly those of the Protocol, refused on May 6 by Abp. Lefebvre.”
Let all those who argue that Abp. Lefebvre never retracted the May 5, 1988 Protocol think again!
“Contra factum, not fit argumentum!”
2. “We are forced to choose. Naturally, in our time of liberalism many people cannot understand that we can defend opinions that can seem “outdated,” “antiquated,” “medieval,” etc. But the doctrine of the Church is the doctrine of the Church. When the popes condemned liberty of thought, liberty of conscience, liberty of religions, they explained why they condemned them. Leo XIII wrote long encyclicals on the subject. One only has to read them [to understand the reasons for these condemnations]; the same applies for Pope Pius IX and Pope Gregory XVI. Again, all of this is based on the Church’s fundamental principles, on the fact that the Church is truth, the only truth. This is the way it is; you either believe it or you don’t, of course, but when you believe, then you have to draw the consequences. That is why, personally, I do not believe that the declarations of the Council on liberty of conscience, liberty of thought, and liberty of religion can be compatible with what the popes taught in the past. Therefore, we have to choose. Either we choose what the popes have taught for centuries and we choose the Church or we choose what was said by the Council. But we cannot choose both at the same time since they are contradictory.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Press Conference, September 15, 1976; from Itineraires, entitled “La condemnation sauvage de Mgr. Lefebvre,” April 1977, p. 299).
Source: The Recusant
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko: 2014 Open Letter to SSPX Priests - Unfurl the Catholic Banner |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:24 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- No Replies
|
|
Fr. David Hewko - Unfurl the Catholic Banner! Open Letter to SSPX Priests September 25th, 2014
Two years ago, the Doctrinal Declaration (April 15, 2012) which compromised on major points of DOCTRINE and signed by Bishop Fellay was sent to Rome with the hopes of an agreement. As of Bishop Fellay's meeting on September 21, 2014 (as reported by Della Sala Stampa of the Vatican Press) it is glaringly evident that the "full reconciliation" or agreement is decidedly established, the only question is when.
Fr. Valan Raja Kumar, SSPX-MC, put it simply: "The SSPX died two years ago (2012); now (2014) they are discussing the burial place and time." Catholic Tradition is tottering to its fall! The betrayal of the SSPX Superiors to Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and King, has been consummated. The evidence is clear. It is an established fact. Dress it up in terms of "prudence," "practical negotiations," "unilateral recognition of tolerance," etc., the fact is obvious to all who have eyes to see, the old SSPX is essentially over.
As an appeal to all the priests of the Society of St. Pius X and all the faithful as well, have the resounding words of Archbishop Lefebvre been forgotten so soon? Has the combat for Catholic Tradition crumbled to the new version of "Trad-Ecumenism" with the liberal Catholic positions such as St. Peter's, Ecclesia Dei, Una Voce, etc., etc.? Have the SSPX priests agreed to trade in their boxing gloves for ballerina slippers; traded the "sword of the spirit" for the "fables" of Liberal Catholicism; the defense of the true Christ the King for "religious freedom within the Conciliar Church"? (cf. 1st Condition for Agreement with Rome, 2012).
Whatever happened to the stand of Abp. Lefebvre? "It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I am hearing the voices of all these Popes--since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII--telling us: 'Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our preaching, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from the earth? Please, please continue to keep this treasure which we have given you! Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the [Catholic] Church! Continue the [Catholic] Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we [popes] condemned in the past the present authorities have embraced and are professing! How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Modernism, Sillonism.'
"All the errors which we [popes] have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the [Conciliar] Church. Is this possible? Unless you do something to continue this Tradition of the Church which we [popes] have given you, all of it shall disappear. Souls will be lost!" (Abp. Lefebvre, Consecration Sermon, June 30, 1988).
Indeed, all of Catholic Tradition will be "swamped" and "come to naught" (Abp. Lefebvre) when Tradition puts itself under these Modernist authorities.
How long will the watch dogs (i.e. priests) be silent while the SSPX Superiors submit Our Lord's flock to the wolves? Obedience to such a cooperation is a grave sin! Now is the last hour to escape this trap and turn from the Conciliar Church's snare. Unfurl the Catholic banner and proclaim the Truth against this apostate age!
"The Truth needs no disguise," said St. Pius X, "our flag must be unfurled; only by being straightforward and open can we do a little good, resisted no doubt by our enemies, but respected by them." (St. Pius X, October 20, 1912 Letter to Fr. Ciceri).
Let us hold high the great Declaration of 1974 that doesn't pretend to excuse Vatican II or "accept 95% of it," or "simply wish its correction." NO! NO! NO! "Even if all its acts are not formally heretical," said the Archbishop about the Council, "it comes from heresy and results in heresy!" (cf. 1974 Declaration).
"This fight between the Church and the Liberals and Modernism is the fight over Vatican II. It is as simple as that! and the consequences are far reaching. "The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake are not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism." (Abp. Lefebvre, Econe Address, Sept. 6, 1990, Seven months before his death).
Let us SSPX priests stand by the clear words of Abp. Lefebvre which resound like a trumpet over the battlefield of doctrine: "The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform!" (Abp. Lefebvre, 1974 Declaration). And how close should we get to Modern Rome? "It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from the Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith!" (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13).
This position has been abandoned by Bp. Fellay and all those now following the path of Operation Suicide. They no longer heed the urgent warning: "It is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar Bishops and Modernist Rome! It is the greatest danger threatening our people!" (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter, July-August 1989). [cf. See 5th Condition]. In the June 2014 Letter of Dom Tomas Aquinas, OSB, he repeats Abp. Lefebvre's emphasis that the heart of the fight of Catholic Tradition is not firstly the Mass, but Christ's Kingship!
"It is this point, where our opposition lies and the reason why there is no possibility of an agreement. The question is not so much about the Mass, because the Mass is just one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism, and thus changing the worship, Sacraments, Catechism, etc. "The real, fundamental opposition is against the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ! 'Oportet Illum regnare!' St. Paul tells us Our Lord came to reign. They [Modernist Rome] say 'No!' We say: 'Yes!' with all its consequences!" (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 70, 1993).
Dom Bruno, OSB explains the history of the fall and compromise of the Benedictine Monastery of Le Barroux (cf. The Recusant, issue #19, August 2014) while a handful of priests thought to stay and "fight from within." These priests and monks opposed the Liberal direction towards an agreement with Modernist Rome and vowed they would never say the New Mass. Eventually, they did because of the pressure, "unity" placed above the Truth, "personalities" of superiors put above unchanging principles, and they all fell to the new Liberalism and New Mass!
"That was what Fr. De Blignieres did too. He has changed completely. He who had written an entire volume condemning Religious Liberty, he now writes in favor of Religious Liberty! That's not being serious. One cannot rely anymore on men like that, who have understood nothing of the doctrinal question." (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 79, 1991).
Finally, please read the recent Letter of Dom Rafael, OSB dated September 15, 2014. In it, he quotes Bp. De Castro Mayer's insistence that the virtue of Faith, being the foundation of all supernatural life, has to be uncompromising. Any tolerance for error opens the door to all error and heresy! He also quotes the great Cardinal Pie of Poitiers saying: "Battles are won or lost at the DOCTRINAL LEVEL. The error of the French Catholics was to wait and see what the consequences of the French Revolution would be, before reacting, before fighting back against these errors."
So now, it is criminal to wait until the practical agreement between the SSPX and the Conciliar Church is "fully reconciled" before rising up against this toleration of false doctrines. It is putting the practical agreement above Christ the King, above His Divinity, above His Honor, His Doctrine, His Catholic Church! This is the heart of the whole crisis: Our Lord Jesus Christ is GOD. Christ is KING. "Every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God: and this is Antichrist." (I Jn. 4:3). Vatican II dissolves the Divinity and Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ in its very documents!
Therefore, Vatican II is of the spirit of the Antichrist. Now, --the Doctrinal Declaration (April 15, 2012). --the General Chapter Statement (July 14, 2012). --the Six Conditions for the Agreement (July 17, 2012). --the Letter of Bp. Fellay and 2 Assistants to the 3 Bishops (April 14, 2012). --the CNS Interview (May 11, 2012). --the DICI Interview (June 8, 2012). --the La Liberte Interview (May 11, 2001). --the Meeting with Cardinal Muller (September 21, 2014). --the expulsion of Bp. Williamson and numerous priests, the silences and punitive transfers since 2012. All the above proves that the SSPX leaders are now willing to accept Vatican II "in the light of Tradition," the New Mass as "legitimately promulgated," the heresy of Religious Liberty of the Council as "limited, very limited" and "reconcilable with the Magisterium," the New Code, the New Profession of Faith (1989), all of which constitute the "30 pieces of silver" for the Agreement with Modernist Rome.
Agreement or no agreement, these concessions dissolve Our Lord Jesus Christ. The "30 pieces" was paid and never rejected. Only one option remains for any Traditional Catholic priest: It is to openly oppose this Modernism and Operation Suicide of reconciliation with the Conciliar Church. Finally, we have the model before us, and how we should act: "If my work is of God, He will guard it and use it for the good of His Church. Our Lord has promised us, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. "This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this. At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me: 'What have you done with your episcopate? What have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?' I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words: 'You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them." (Abp. Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 163).
O Immaculate Heart of Mary, Crusher of all heresies, pray for us!
+ + +
Fr. Hewko's above letter may be found in The Recusant, Issue 21 (October 2014).
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko: 2012 Open Letter to Bishop Fellay, Priests, and Faithful |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:15 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- No Replies
|
|
OPEN LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY BISHOP FELLAY,
SOCIETY PRIESTS, RELIGIOUS AND FAITHFUL
November 8, 2012
Feast of the 4 Holy Crowned Martyrs
When Catholics during the Protestant Revolution were told: “Accept the Oath of Supremacy or death!” most Catholics took the Oath. But the Lord God was pleased to raise up an army of martyrs and a saint-pope who condemned the rising errors at the Council of Trent.
When Catholics during the French Revolution were told: “Peace at the price of a little incense to the ‘gods’ of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity!” Although most compromised, yet God raised up thousands of martyrs and a faithful Resistance from the Vendee. Then, a Cardinal Pie of Poitiers to combat the Revolution’s “peaceful implementations” of the Napoleonic era. Within a century, faithful Catholics rallied behind the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, who condemned Liberal Catholicism.
When Catholics were told: “Better Red than dead!” refusing to cooperate in what Pius XI called an “intrinsically evil” economic, political and atheistic system, many did nothing, but millions of Catholics filled the Martyrs’ bleachers in Heaven, and heroic resistance was offered on the part of bishops, priests and laity throughout Russia, Ukraine, Poland, China, Vietnam, Hungary, Spain, etc., etc. In Hungary, the so-called “Peace Priests” were promised their Latin Mass, their churches, incense and vestments as long as they remained silent on the “touchy” issue of Communism. Cardinal Mindzenty, one of the few not to bow down, firmly refused and was imprisoned for 14 years.
When Catholics in Mexico were obliged to conform to the anti-Catholic laws of the Freemasonic government under Calles, many only watched from afar, but there rose up the Cristero Resistance who valiantly resisted them, shouting their: “Viva Cristo Rey!” in opposition to the Federalista’s: “Viva Satanas!”
When Catholics were told: “Obey, and submit to the Vatican II Reforms!” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and many priests preferred to appear “disobedient” rather than betray the Faith of Tradition. Unfortunately, most clergy and laity falsely “obeyed” and went along with the enforced directives of Vatican II.
It so tragically happens that, now, 42 years after its founding, the “life-boat” of the Society of St.Pius X is being coaxed with sweets and promises into the “harbor” of Modernist Rome filled with “sunken boats” of numerous traditional communities, once publicly opposing the errors of Vatican II.
The SSPX always resisted openly and valiantly, with the grace of God, up until July 14, 2012, when the new direction towards a practical agreement became a “determined” and “approved” endeavor. This change of principle brought about a whole new orientation in the SSPX policy toward Rome and an official departure from the uncompromising stand of Archbishop Lefebvre, expressed in the Declaration of 1974 and the Statements of 1983 and 2006. Before, it was always: “No practical agreement until there’s a doctrinal agreement;” now, it’s “practical agreement without first the doctrinal agreement.” Dare we say: “Go along to get along? Agree to disagree?” (A small error in the principles leads to disastrous conclusions).
Archbishop Lefebvre was our holy Founder. He not only had the grace of state of a Superior General, but also the grace of state as a Founder of a religious organization, to which he sought to impart his (1) spirit; (2) his principles; and (3) his experience. These were the fruit of many years of leadership in a wide variety of pastures. He was a theologian of high repute (cf. The testimony and praise of Canon Berto, the Archbishop’s episcopal theologian during Vatican II). He was a bishop and later, archbishop (with several bishops subject to him). He was the papal representative for all of French-speaking Africa. He was the Superior General of the largest Missionary Religious Order in the Church. He was a frequent visitor to the Popes in Rome. He was on the Preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council. He was a key member of “Coetus Internationalis Patrum” during the Council. He made many interventions during the Council (cf. I Accuse the Council! by Archbishop Lefebvre). He was not afraid to challenge and rebuke both the Council and the Popes of the Council afterwards. He was the man of the Church chosen by Divine Providence to launch the SSPX despite tremendous pressure from inside and outside the Church. His role of saving the Church and Priesthood was prophesied by the Virgin Mary in Ecuador, nearly 350 years ago! From such a man there is much to learn.
Fr. Ludovic Barrielle (so highly revered by the Archbishop) commented in 1982: “I am writing this to serve as a lesson for everyone. The day that the SSPX abandons the spirit and rules of its Founder, it will be lost. Furthermore, all our brothers who, in the future, allow themselves to judge and condemn the Founder and his principles, will show no hesitation in eventually taking away from the Society the Traditional Teaching of the Church and the Mass instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Would it not be accurate to say that Archbishop Lefebvre’s spirit, principles, and experience are summarized in the following response as well as warning, made to his sons? When asked about reopening dialogue with Rome in 1988 (after he admitted that signing the May Protocol was a big mistake), he replied: “We do not have the same outlook on reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more!
“I will place the discussion AT THE DOCTRINAL LEVEL: ‘Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the Popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in the light of the doctrines of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible! It is useless! Thus the positions will be clear.” (Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 223, Interview of Fideliter Nov-Dec 1988). [N.B. See more related quotes opposing an agreement, at the end. They far outnumber the few expressing slight hope for some agreement, before 1988.]
Our dear Founder clearly saw “three surrenders” by making a merely practical agreement with Modernist Rome, regardless of the number of conditions, which are: (1) surrender to Rome’s ultimate power of veto on the major decisions of the Society; (2) surrender of the power of veto over any future elected Superior General; and (3) surrender of the power of veto over the names of candidates proposed as future bishops. With these influential powers handed over to the enemies of Jesus Christ, “they will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Dec. 13, 1984 Address to Priests of the French District).
And further: “That is why what can look like a concession, is in reality, merely a maneuver.” And more: “We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome! It is the greatest danger threatening our people! If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order to, now, put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors!” (Archbishop Lefebvre Interview, Fideliter, July-August 1989).
“I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions; you are working to de-Christianize society, the human person, and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’ Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends, Rome is in apostasy! I am not speaking empty words! That is the truth! Rome is in apostasy! One can no longer have any confidence in these people! They have left the Church! They have left the Church! They have left the Church! It is certain! Certain! Certain! (Marcel Lefebvre, by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p.548. The above is an accurate translation from YouTube audio of the actual voice of Archbishop Lefebvre).
But the objection can be heard: “That’s exaggerated, Father, there’s no agreement yet, and there won’t be one under this pontificate, all is back to normal!”
Such are the words. But why so many actions to the contrary? Why, then, was the General Chapter Declaration of 2012 not amended to conform to all the previous SSPX Declarations? Why were the “6 Conditions” left to remain flimsy and uncorrected? (In other words, why is the “For Sale” sign still out on the front lawn?) Why do the expulsions, silencing, refusal of Holy Communions, threats and punishments not desist for those openly opposing a false agreement? Why the expulsion of Bishop Williamson who openly adhered to the non-compromising line of Archbishop Lefebvre? Why the sigh-of-relief expressed by an SSPX spokesman upon the expulsion of Bishop Williamson: “The decision will certainly facilitate the talks [with Rome]?” (Fr. Andreas Steiner to the German News Agency DPA).
Why, upon the 50th Anniversary of “the greatest disaster in the history of the Church” (Archbishop Lefebvre) Vatican II, the overwhelming silence on the official websites (cf.SSPX.org and DICI) of our Founder’s condemnation of the errors of the Council, unless it be to avoid such “polemical hindrances” towards an agreement? Why the recent “Ecclesia Dei” press release about negotiations still continuing? Why such a minimum reaction, in comparison with that of Archbishop Lefebvre, to the trampling of the First Commandment at Assisi III? Why were the ambiguous interviews of CNS, DICI and YouTube (granted, “cut and paste” but) not promptly corrected and still, as yet, not clarified? (For example: “…We see that, in the discussions, many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it [….]. Many people understand wrongly the Council [….] the Council presents a religious freedom that is a freedom that is very, very limited.” (Bishop Fellay, CNS Interview, May 11, 2012, 1:06 until 1:23). What happened to the “I accuse the Council,” pronounced by Archbishop Lefebvre?
Your Excellency, please return to your former preaching of the “Truth in charity!” When you once openly warned the priests of Campos, Brazil not to make a practical agreement with Modernist Rome. You once traced the fall of Campos under Bishop Rifan, and a similar pattern is now engulfing our dear Society! You once said: “For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point (i.e. Rome’s conversion to Tradition) and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos.” (Bishop Fellay’s Letter to Friends and Benefactors #63, Jan. 6, 2003).
You once told us: “I think Rome’s friendliness towards us is because of its ecumenical mentality. It is certainly not because Rome is now saying to us, ‘Of course, you are right, let’s go.’ No, that’s not the way Rome thinks about us. The idea they have is another one. The idea is an ecumenical one. It is the idea of pluricity, pluriformity!” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors #65, Dec, 8, 2003). This ecumenical mentality has only increased with Pope Benedict XVI (e.g. the scandals of Assisi III, visits to the Mosque, Synagogues, admittance of Anglicans without renouncing their errors, etc.).
As for Rome “changing towards Tradition,” we can recall similar conditions promised to the Le Barroux Monastery to freely preach against Modernism, and have the True Mass, but under the agreement, they collapsed to compromise, accepting the New Mass within 5 years after! As recent as March 2012, the Good Shepherd Institute has been seriously pressured by Rome to teach Vatican II in their seminary and adopt the New Catechism. The Redemptorists in Scotland were officially put under the diocesan bishop as of August 15, 2012. Our dear Founder explained the reason why up to nine traditional communities yielded to compromise the Faith, because “IT IS NOT THE SUBJECTS WHO FORM THE SUPERIORS, BUT THE SUPERIORS WHO FORM THE SUBJECTS.” (Archbishop Lefebvre 1989 Interview One Year After the Consecrations). (“Let him who thinks he stands,…”).
Seeing the sorrowful direction of our dear SSPX now only confirms more and more that it really is determined to enter into an agreement with the Conciliar Church without a doctrinal resolution and, as the 6 Conditions prove, willingly enter an agreement that will, by that very fact, subject the SSPX to Modernist Rome. “We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization” (General Chapter Statement of SSPX, July 14, 2012). It is not rumors, it is there, “in stone.”
How is it possible for a priest of the SSPX to be true to his anti-Modernist Oath and, therefore, obliged to preach against Modernism, against Rome’s being
infected with Modernism, and the insanity of making a merely practical, impossible agreement with Modernist Rome, and yet consequently, be continually silenced?
Recent events show such priests are subject to punishments by silence, punitive transfers or expulsion. How is it possible for a priest to preach the Truth “in season and out of season” in such an atmosphere?
So, I desire with all my heart to maintain the anti-Modernist Oath I made before the Most Blessed Sacrament and intend to keep it, by keeping the same sense and meaning of the doctrine of the Church of all time. Furthermore, I cannot speak for other priests, but I cannot abandon the clear, unambiguous stand of our Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre (who would doubtlessly fiercely oppose this new direction since July 2012) and choose to appear “disobedient” while, in fact, truly obeying the directives of our Founder.
To our young Catholic people, “be strong, let the Word of God abide in you, and you will overcome the wicked one” (I John 2:14). The Archbishop once said: “Some people call me ‘dissident’ and a ‘rebel,’ and if that means against the Vatican II Council and the Liberal Reforms, then yes, I am ‘dissident’ and a ‘rebel.’” So, I humbly add, that, if, to oppose this direction towards subjecting Catholic Tradition to Modernists who do not hold the integral Catholic Faith (and thereby endangering the eternal salvation of countless souls!) then yes, following Archbishop Lefebvre, I too am “dissident” and a “rebel.” On the contrary, the truth appears to be that the “rebellion” has been committed by SSPX members who favor an agreement and thereby rebel against the principles and tradition of the Society. In good conscience, I cannot follow in that direction.
So, therefore, after several months of much prayer and reflection, it seems clearly the Will of God that I help in the Resistance to the dismantling of Archbishop Lefebvre’s work, by assisting the priests who want to maintain his principles. The present address is:
16 Dogwood Road South
Hubbardston, MA 01452 .
(Warning: Be slow to believe cyberrumors such as “this is a repetition of ‘the 9’ in 1983.” Stay with the actual documents, letters and facts. See especially the well-documented work, Is This Operation Suicide? by Stephen Fox).
Doubtless, I seem bold in expressing myself in this manner! But it is with ardent love that I compose these lines, love of God’s glory, love of Jesus Christ the King, love of Mary, of the souls, of the Society of St. Pius X, of the Church, of the Holy Father, the Pope! Just as the SSPX had always continued the Archbishop’s work, until Rome returns to Tradition; so the SSPX priests of the Resistance will continue his work, with God’s grace, “without bitterness or resentment,” until the leaders of the SSPX return to our Founder’s principles.
Your Excellency, I would be happy to see you when you pass by.
May your Excellency deign to accept my gratitude and the assurance of my most respectful devotion in Our Lord,
Fr. David Hewko
“The greatest service we can render the Catholic Church, the Successor of Peter, the salvationof souls and our own, is to say ‘NO’ to the reformed Liberal Church because we believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son-of-God-made-Man, Who is neither liberal nor reformable!”
-(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Sept. 3, 1975, Letter to Friends and Benefactors #9)
“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church, for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” - (Archbishop Lefebvre (Spiritual Journey, p. 13)
+ + +
Rewind – Fr. David Hewko’s Open Letter to Bishop Fellay – November 8, 2012
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko Statement: August 2019 - On the New Rite of Ordination |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:05 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko
- No Replies
|
|
Statement from Fr. Hewko - August 1, 2019
Quote:If anyone wants to know where I stand, it is with Abp. Marcel Lefebvre. He surpassed the best theologians of his time and he, by far, surpasses all the lay theologians of the internet! That is where I stand, period! He said these New Rites of Pope Paul VI were doubtful, period! He spoke extensively on this, without necessarily falling into sedevacantism. There is an undefinable darkness about this evil which Sacred Scripture calls the "mystery of iniquity", it is, without a doubt, partly what Our Lady of Fatima spoke of in Her Third Secret that was supposed to be revealed in 1960, that is why Abp. Lefebvre said he sees the necessity to conditionally reconfirm and reordain those coming from the New Rite. There is great wisdom in his position, "Neither Modernist nor Schismatic (or sedevacantist)!"
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: Pope_Benedict_xvi_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Pope_Benedict_xvi_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
![[Image: shutterstock_1537731881_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/shutterstock_1537731881_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
