| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 518 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 514 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google, Yandex
|
| Latest Threads |
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
6 hours ago
» Replies: 12
» Views: 851
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
7 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 25
|
Purgatory Explained by th...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
Today, 05:27 AM
» Replies: 34
» Views: 2,842
|
Bishop appointed by Commu...
Forum: Socialism & Communism
Last Post: Stone
Today, 04:57 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 42
|
Dr. Marian Horvat: The Tw...
Forum: General Commentary
Last Post: Stone
Today, 04:52 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 50
|
German [District] Superio...
Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
Last Post: Stone
Today, 04:48 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 56
|
Thursday Night Holy Hour ...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 03:25 PM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 1,968
|
The Catholic Trumpet: ‘We...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:32 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 73
|
Swiss church installs AI ...
Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:47 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 81
|
The Declaration of 1974: ...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:42 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 50
|
|
|
| SSPX's 2012 Doctrinal Declaration |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:27 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- Replies (6)
|
 |
It has been nearly six years since Bishop Fellay signed and offered to Rome his Doctrinal Declaration. Since that time we have seen many changes in the SSPX: its [/url]re-branding, the SSPX in Argentina is formally recognized by the conciliar church, the SSPX asking the local diocesan priests to hear the marriage vows of SSPX parishioners, Fr. Paul Robinson preaching evolution with the full support of the SSPX, etc. to just name a few.
These do not include those events that are antecedent to the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration but which also speak to a shift away from the guiding principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, events such as the GREC meetings, the asking by Bishop Fellay of Pope Benedict XVI for the lifting of the excommunications in 2009 and the praise for the Motu Proprio of 2007.
But these antecedent events culminate in the Doctrinal Declaration. And by consequence, the fruits of the that Declaration are seen in the many errors and changes since that its signing in 2012. It is for these reasons that we are once again looking at that document. They say that hindsight is twenty-twenty. How much clearer things appear when in their proper context. The purpose of this thread is to serve as a reminder of WHY that Doctrinal Declaration has spewed so much error. And how the events that are unfolding and continue to unfold in the betrayal of the SSPX, the Chronology of its Suicide, are typified in this document:
Quote:Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble
Presented to Rome
15th April, 2012
Translated from the text on La Sapiniere.
I
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.
II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)
III
1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.
2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."(3)
3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).
4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).
5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.
6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).
7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.
Notes--
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.
(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.
(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Dz. 3070.
(4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: “All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”
(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.
(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].”
(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.
(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.
(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.
[url=http://redirect.viglink.com?key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&subId=6872759&u=http%3A//www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012]www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012
|
|
|
| Doctrinal Evolution: Letter to Priest who left SSPX to join Conciliar Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 02:31 PM - Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
- No Replies
|
|
Why such a Doctrinal Evolution of the Ecclesia Dei Communities?
[or, Why do traditional priests and bishops leave Tradition to join the Conciliar Church?]
Dominicans of Avrille| March 18, 2015
This text was written several years ago by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. It was addressed to those of his confreres who had left the SSPX in order to receive an official canonical status from the Conciliar Church [within the [i]Ecclesia Dei communities]. He was trying to find a reason that would explain their doctrinal evolution.[/i]
There is an important difference between the clear, consistent declarations made by Archbishop Lefebvre right from his early days on Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and Vatican II, and the position presently held by yourself.
To explain this situation, there are only three possible hypotheses:
1) either you never knew the real position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, and you followed him not properly knowing why;
2) you understood his position but did not approve of it, and so you hypocritically gave the appearance of remaining with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX; or
3) your doctrinal position evolved between the period “before”, and the period “after” the Episcopal consecrations.
1. The hypothesis that you may be ignorant seems to be psychologically impossible and even absurd. It is simply impossible for any of you not to have read even one work by Archbishop Lefebvre, not to have heard even one of his sermons, and not to have known his firm official position. Your ignorance in this matter must be categorically rejected.
2. The hypothesis of hypocrisy may well be possible. Nevertheless, it seems highly improbable given the number of persons involved and their moral character. Furthermore, the hypothesis of hypocrisy represents an insult so serious that I would accept it only after hearing an explicit declaration upholding this position by the individuals in question. That is why I reject this hypothesis as the explanation for your evolution.
3. Therefore, if you know Archbishop Lefebvre’s position on Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and Vatican II (we reject ignorance); if you are not a secret opponent and liar (we reject hypocrisy); then that only leaves the third hypothesis as the right one: your change of position can only be explained by a doctrinal evolution of your position.
But where does this doctrinal evolution come from?
Here, two hypotheses are possible: either the cause is of a purely intellectual order, or it is of a moral and psychological order.
A. The hypothesis that the evolution is purely intellectual seems to fall under the heading of miracles rather than factual history. One would have to imagine that there was a sudden change in thinking, an intellectual illumination, on the goodness of Liturgical Reform, on the truth contained in Dignitatis Humanae, or on the timeliness of Vatican II. A serious historian must reject such an unlikely hypothesis.
B. The only valid hypothesis is that of a moral and psychological order, in other words, one that originates from exterior circumstances. Only one conclusion is possible: it is your dealings with Rome and with diocesan bishops that have brought about this doctrinal evolution.
Indeed, all your Roman and diocesan contacts are in favour of the Liturgical Reform, of Dignitatis Humanae and of Vatican II. It is completely normal, obvious, and historically certain that once you negotiate with Rome and the bishops and once you demand certain concessions, you must then be silent, you must soften or altogether abandon your opposition to the Liturgical Reform, to Dignitatis Humanae and to the Council, or else you will find yourself in a position that will be psychologically unbearable. This is the one true cause of your doctrinal evolution: the moral weight of those with whom you dialogue and your own desire to achieve tangible results from these difficult negotiations where you are in a minority position. This situation forces you to make concessions, if only verbal concessions.
I do not claim that you are making these concessions out of cowardice. I simply claim that, once you have evolved beyond a certain point, you then start to think it possible and even necessary to temper your opposition in the hope of obtaining greater results. But, if I were to consider your present attitude objectively, I would be obliged to note that there has been a shift concerning points that have always been considered as vital in the combat for Tradition.
The conclusion is therefore extremely clear: in spite of your good intentions and your initial desire to remain faithful to Tradition, it was impossible for you to continue to firmly resist the Liturgical Reform, Religious Liberty and the Council, and at the same time to pursue negotiations with those who are firmly in favour of these three key points.
As things stand at present, negotiations and agreements with Rome and with diocesan bishops must necessarily end up, sooner or later, with the abandonment of the positions that were always held in Tradition and notably by Archbishop Lefebvre.
In other words, present-day Rome has but one goal: to lead all who negotiate with Rome towards the errors of the Council and Liturgical Reform. The truth is there for all to see: Rome is not in favour of Tradition. That is why they have not kept their promises. That is why Rome did not sincerely wish the negotiations to succeed.
* * *
The author of the above text has now “evolved” himself, as is shown in a statement in the December 2014 issue of a widely diffused publication:
« We wish with all our hearts for a speedy “reconciliation” that would benefit both groups and also the entire Church. The difficulties are objective and do not primarily depend on individuals, but we may always pray that Our Lord “gather His Church in unity”. That is what we fervently ask for every day. »
Conciliar Rome has not converted. The danger remains the same.
[Emphasis in the original.]
|
|
|
|
| Second Sunday of Advent |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 08:08 AM - Forum: Advent
- Replies (6)
|
|
SECOND SUNDAY IN ADVENT.
Taken from Fr. Leonard Goffine's Explanations of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays, Holydays throughout the Ecclesiastical Year, 1880
This day the Church not only makes mention in the office of the priest, but also in the Mass, of the two different Advents of Christ, that by His first gracious advent we may be gladdened . and by His last terrible coming at the day of judgment we may be impressed with salutary fear, with this intention she cries out at the Introit: People of Sion, behold the Lord shall come to save the nations; and the Lord shall make the glory of his voice to be heard in the joy of your heart. (Isai. XXX. 3o.) drive ear, O thou that rulest Israel: thou that leadest Joseph like a sheep. (Ps. LXXIX.) Glory etc.
PRAYER OF THE CHURCH. Stir up our hearts, O Lord, to prepare the ways of Thine only-begotten Son: that through this advent we may be worthy to serve Thee with purified minds: who Livest and reignest with God tin* Father, in union with the Holy Ghost. God for ever and ever. Amen.
EPISTLE. (Romans XV. 4 — 13.) Brethren, what things soever were written, were written for our learning, that through patience - and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope. Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind one towards another, according to Jesus Christ: that with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive one another, as Christ also hath received you unto the honor of God. For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God. to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. But that the Gentiles are to glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: Therefore will I confess to thee. O Lord, among the Gentiles, and will sing to thy name. And again he saith: Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. And again: Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles, and magnify him, all ye people. And again, Isaias saith: There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise up to rule the Gentiles, in him the Gentiles shall hope. Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope, and in the power of the Holy Ghost.
What does St. Paul teach in this Epistle?
The Jews and Gentiles who had been converted to the Christian faith were disputing among themselves at Rome, in regard to abstinence and the use of certain kinds of food, reproaching each other severely; the Jews boasted that the Saviour, according to promise, was born of their nation, thus claiming Him from the Gentiles, who, in their turn, reproached the Jews for their ingratitude in having crucified Him. To restore harmony St. Paul shows that each had reason, the Jews and Gentiles alike, to praise God, to whose grace and goodness they owed all; that each had in Him a Redeemer in whom they could hope for salvation; and he warns them not to deprive themselves of that hope by contentions. By these words the Apostle also teaches that we too, have great reason to praise God, and to thank Him for calling us, whose forefathers were heathens, to the Christian faith, and to guard against losing our salvation by pride, envy, impurity &c.
Why should we read the Scriptures?
That we may know what we are to believe, and do in order to be saved, as all Scripture inspired by God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice; (Tim. III. 16.) that we may learn from what Christ has done for us, and the saints for Christ, to be patient in our sufferings, and to be consoled and encouraged by their example. To derive this benefit from the Scriptures, the Catholic must read them by the light of that Spirit through whose assistance they came into existence, who lives and remains for ever with the Church: that is, the light of the Holy Ghost must be sought, that their meaning may be read according to the sense of the Church and not be explained according to the reader's judgment. For he who reads the holy Scriptures by the light of his own private judgment, must, as experience shows, of necessity diverge from the right path, become entangled in manifold doubts, and at last, lose the faith entirely. For this reason the Catholic Church has very properly limited the reading of the Bible, not as has been falsely asserted, unconditionally forbidden it, but she allows the reading of those editions only, which are accompanied by notes and explanations, that the unity of faith may not be disturbed, and that among Catholics there may not be the terrible bewilderment of the human intellect which has taken place among the different heretical sects who have even declared murder, bigamy and impurity to be permissible on the authority the Bible. — We are to consider also, that Christ never commanded the Bible to be written or read, and that not the readers but the hearers and the followers of the word of God by which is meant those who hear the word of God in sermons, and keep it, will be saved.
Why is God called a God of patience, of consolation, and of hope?
He is called a God of patience because He awaits our repentance, of consolation, because He gives us grace be patient in crosses and afflictions, and so consoles us inwardly, that we become not faint-hearted; of hope, because He gives us the virtue of hope, and because He desires to be Himself the reward we are to expect after this life.
ASPIRATION. O God of patience, of consolation and of hope, fill our hearts with peace and joy, and grant that we may become perfect in all good, and by faith, hope and charity, attain the promised salvation.
GOSPEL. (Matt. XI 2 - 10.) At that time, when John had heard in prison the works of Christ, sending two of his disciples, he said to him: Art thou he that art to come, or do we look for another? And Jesus making answer, said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them: and blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me. And when they went their way. Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John, What went you out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind? But what went you out to see? a man clothed in soft garments? Behold, they that are clothed in soft garments are in the houses of kings. But what went you out to see? a prophet? yea I tell you, and more than a prophet. For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my Angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.
Why was John in prison?
He was in prison, and lost his life, because he had rebuked king Herod for his adulterous marriage with his brother's wife. (Matt. XIV. 3-10.) Truth, as the proverb says, is certainly a very beautiful mother, but she usually bears a very ugly daughter: Hatred. St. John experienced, that speaking the truth very often arouses hatred and enmity against the speaker. — Let us learn from him to speak the truth always, when duty requires it, even if it brings upon us the greatest misfortunes, for, if with St. John we patiently bear persecution, with St. John we shall become martyrs for truth.
Why did St John send his disciples to Christ?
That they should learn from Christ, who had become illustrious by His teachings and miracles, that He was really the promised Messiah, the Saviour of the world, whom they should follow.
Why did Christ say to lite disciples of St. John: “Go and say to John, the blind see, the lame walk, &”?
That they should, by His miracles, judge Him to be the Messiah, because the prophets had predicted that He would work such miracles, (Isai. XXXV. 5—6.) Christ," says St. Cyril, proved that He was the Messiah by the grandeur as well as by the number of His miracles."
Why does Christ add: “And blessed is he who scandalized in me?”
Christ used these words in reference to those who would be scandalized by His poverty, humility and ignominious death on the cross, and who for these reasons would doubt and despise Him, and cast Him away; though "man," as St. Gregory says, -owes all tin- more love to the Lord, his God, the more humiliations He has borne for him."
What was our Lord's object in the questions he asked concerning St. John?
His object was, to remove from St. John all suspicion of failing in faith in Him; and to praise the perseverance with which, although imprisoned and threatened with death, he continued to till his office of preacher, thus constituting him an example to all preachers, confessors and superiors, that they may never be deterred by human respect, or fear of man, or other temporal considerations, from courageously fulfilling their duties. Our Lord commended also rigorous penance, exhibited by St. John's coarse garments and simple food, that we may learn, from his example, penance and mortification.
Why does Christ say that John is "more than a prophet?"
Because St. John was foretold by the prophet Malachias as was no other prophet; because of all the prophets he was the only one who with his own eyes saw Christ and could point Him out, and was the one to baptize Him: and because like an angel, a messenger of God, he announced the coming of the Saviour, and prepared the way for the Lord.
How did St. John prepare the way for the Saviour?
By his sermons on penance, and by his own penitential life he endeavored to move the hearts of the Jews, that by amending their lives, they might prepare to receive the grace of the Messiah, for God will not come with His grace into our hearts if we do not prepare His way by true repentance.
ASPIRATION. O Lord Jesus, by the praise Thou didst accord to Thy forerunner St. John, for his firmness and austerities, inflame our hearts with love to imitate his steadfastness and penance, that we may never do anything to please man which may be displeasing to Thee; grant us also Thy grace that we too, like St. John, may have those who are confided to our care, instructed in the Christian doctrine.
+++
CONSOLATION IN SUFFERING.
“The God of patience and of comfort, the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing”. (Rom. XV. 5, 13.)
What gives us the greatest consolation in adversities?
THE strong and fervent belief that each and every thing that happens to us, comes to us for our own good from God, and that whatever evil befalls us, is by the will or permission of God. Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, are from God. (Ecclus. XI. 14.) If we have received good things at the hand of God, (Job. II. 10.) saith the pious Job in his affliction, “why should we not receive evil?"
We should be of the full persuasion that without the permission of God not a single hair of our head shall perish, (Luke XXI. 18.) much less can any other evil be done to us by man or devil; (Job. I.) we should have a steadfast confidence that if we ask Him. God can and will assist us in our sufferings, if it be for our salvation. Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? And if she should forget, yet will I forget thee. Behold, I have graven thee in my hands; (Isai. XLIX. 15, 16.) we should hope for abundant reward in the future life, which we will merit by patience in our sufferings, For that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; (II Cor. IV. 17.) we should remember that all complaints and murmurs against the dispensation of God useless, and lead only to harm and shame; Who hath resisted Him. and hath had peace? (Job. IX. 4.) we should have a vivid remembrance of our sins, for which we have long since deserved the eternal punishments of hell, — hence the well known saying of St. Augustine: O Lord here cut, here burn, but spare me in eternity. No other way leads to the kingdom of heaven than the way of the cross, which Christ Himself, His sorrowing mother, and all the saints had to tread. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory? (Luke XXIV. 26.) Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. (Acts XIV. 21.) And we should not forget that sorrows and adversities are signs of God's love, and manifest proofs of being His chosen ones. Whom the Lord loveth He chastiseth, and He scourgeth every son whom He receiveth. (Heb. XII. 6. comp. 7-11)
PRAYER IN SORROW. O almighty, kind, and merciful God! who hast said: "Call upon me in the day of trouble. I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me". (Ps. XLIX. 15.) behold relying upon Thy word. I take refuge in Thee in my trouble. Give honor to Thy name, therefore, and deliver me, if it be pleasing to Thee and beneficial for me, that all may know, Thou art our only help. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| European Commission recommends online ‘services’ for Christmas |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:59 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Spiritual]
- No Replies
|
|
European Commission recommends online ‘services,’ ‘banning of communal singing’ for Christmas
It should be said that the European Commission, in its inhuman regulations to take the joy and truth out of Christmas,
is exerting the power of an unelected executive body that is not famous for using its functions in favor of the common good.
December 5, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The European Commission published a “communication” on December 2, calling all the member states of the European Union to work together on COVID-19 restrictions in view of the upcoming holiday season. Under the title “Staying safe from COVID-19 during winter,” it depicts a dire situation where – according to the document – “every 17 seconds, a person dies in the EU due to COVID-19.” Fear having thus been instilled, the communication suggests a number of measures to be taken all over the EU, including severe limitations on “ceremonies” and a ban on “communal singing.”
The word “Christmas” is drearily absent from the European Commission’s communication, but the mention of “ceremonies” unambiguously points to the feast of the Birth of Our Lord. Despite massive, mainly Islamic immigration, the majority of citizens living in the formerly Christian nations of Europe share at least a basic Catholic or Christian culture. “Ceremonies” during the “holiday season” – a euphemism used to avoid religious terms in the European Union that has formally rejected the mention of Europe’s Christian roots in its Charter – can hardly mean anything else than Holy Mass, and specially Midnight Mass, or the Protestant services that take place to celebrate Christmas.
This is how the unsigned document speaks about these religious gatherings: “In case of ceremonies, consider avoiding large services or using online, TV or radio broadcasts, allocating specific spots for close families (‘household bubbles’) to sit together, and banning of communal singing. The use of masks is particularly relevant during these types of gatherings.”
Yes, you read that correctly. For the whole of the European Union, even in places where a dramatic fall of “cases” – that is, positive tests, mostly on people who have few or no symptoms of the associated COVID-19 – of the Wuhan coronavirus is currently taking place, and hospitalizations and deaths are subsequently also diminishing, the European executive is suggesting that Catholic and other churches should ideally shut out the faithful from their celebrations and force them to join virtual “worship.” Which is, in fact, no worship at all; at most, an aid for private devotion when personal assistance at a service is impossible.
For Catholics, such interference from the secular authorities who presume to dictate how and when they should practice their faith is even more obnoxious. Holy Mass actualizes the Sacrifice of Jesus-Christ on the Cross, for the redemption of many, and allows them to assist at the Eucharistic miracle, by which Our Lord is truly present. Receiving Communion can only be done in person. In the Catholic faith, which is that of the Incarnation, the body cannot and should not be set in “remote” mode, and separated from reality by screens and internet, apart from serious reasons such as verified and actual contagiousness, as every responsible person is capable of working out independently. Body and soul belong together; they are one.
In a way, COVID restrictions are de-unifying the human person, once again tearing asunder what God made one.
And did not Christ say: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them”? This also marks the importance of personal, physical presence in Christian worship.
You also read correctly that a handful of technocrats in Brussels – the seat of the European Commission – has in substance told the whole of the European Union that “communal singing” is not good, and even dangerous and capable of sending people to their graves. The ban it suggests is not for people who are coughing and sneezing, but for all: it is heaping suspicion on one of the most joyful and natural expressions of public worship, that has been with us since the beginnings of Christianity and beyond, and in fact throughout the religious history of mankind.
Singing together bonds communities (and also armies, and revolutionaries, and sailors, and children, and mothers with their newborns, and monks, and nuns…): “To sing is to pray twice,” says the quote attributed to Saint Augustine, probably derived from these words from his Commentary on Psalm 73: “For he that singeth praise, not only praiseth, but only praiseth with gladness: he that singeth praise, not only singeth, but also loveth him of whom he singeth. In praise, there is the speaking forth of one confessing; in singing, the affection of one loving.”
And the European Commission is telling us not to sing? Putting a damper on what is left of European piety and faith and love of the traditional Christmas carols that are so varied and so touching?
It should be said that the European Commission, in its inhuman regulations to take the joy and truth out of Christmas, is exerting the power of an unelected executive body that is not famous for using its functions in favor of the common good. Fortunately, in this case, the binding force of a mere “communication” addressed to the European Parliament and the Council is inexistent. On the flip side, so many absurd and even dangerous rules have been imposed on the public in the EU in the name of fighting COVID-19, often copied from one country to the other, that its impact may well prove to be very real.
Further examination of the European Commission’s recommendations in view of “Staying safe from COVID-19 during winter” reveals their perfect alignment on a narrative that has been smoothly imposed in many European countries and beyond in the name of fear, to the detriment of the economy with millions at risk of losing their livelihood, and of health and psychological well-being as fear and lack of timely treatment for other illnesses are affecting an increasing proportion of the population.
“The latest epidemiological numbers indicate that the COVID-19 restrictions reintroduced since October are starting to reduce the transmission of the virus,” says the document. In France, at least, this is not true: contaminations and new cases of effective illness were already on a downward trend according to used water analyses when the second lockdown was implemented on October 28, and deaths followed suit, spiking ten days later.
Interestingly, the document notes “the buy-in of citizens and communities is critical to the success of any action.” COVID-19 measures are also the fruit of communications campaigns but need to take “pandemic fatigue” into account, says the Brussels Commission: “People are tired of taking the necessary precautionary actions, including physical distancing, reduced social interactions and economic restrictions. This makes essential restrictions more difficult to implement, and provides fertile ground for disinformation about the pandemic.”
It adds: “Pandemic fatigue is an expected and natural response to a prolonged public health crisis on the scale of COVID-19. It is therefore important for Member States to address and recognise this problem. The WHO Regional Office for Europe has developed guidance to support countries in developing multifactorial action plans to maintain and reinvigorate public support for protective behaviours.”
This World Health Organization document is a 28-page publication with advice for governments and health authorities how to go about obtaining acceptance and cooperation (although compliance would be a better word) with restrictions in the fight against a long drawn-out “pandemic.” Not unsurprisingly, the word “liberty” is absent from the documents and “freedom” appears only in the phrase: “An ingrown urge for self-determination and freedom may grow as restrictions continue for a long time, impose inconveniences in everyday life, or continuously change in ways people feel they have little control over.” This, together with “demotivation” that appears “when dire circumstances drag on,” and “humans have to adopt a different style of coping,” is what leads to “pandemic fatigue” according to the WHO. But the WHO is there to help governments overcome this fatigue. It’s an interesting read for those who seek to “decrypt” present government actions and communication.
Returning to the European Commission’s document, it is also helpful to realize that it has, in its own words, “used anonymized and aggregated mobile network operators’ data to derive mobility insights and build tools to inform better targeted measures, in a Mobility Visualisation Platform, available to the Member States. Mobility insights are also useful in monitoring the effectiveness of measures once imposed.”
This means that moving around with a smartphone amounts to offering political powers, even at EU level, a tool to track movements and gatherings that are going against confinement or curfew rules. After anonymous surveillance, can individual surveillance be far behind? China already has the know-how, with facial recognition combined with artificial intelligence. In France, a new security law is proposing to allow drone surveillance: another way to severely curb public liberties and personal freedoms.
For Christmas, the European Union would like to see the definition of “clear criteria for small social gatherings, small events, e.g. maximum number of people allowed to ensure compliance with physical distancing rules and use of masks,” and the implementation of “a maximum number of people per household gathering:” in France, the “strong recommendation” is that Christmas dinners should be limited to six adults (children are not counted). One doctor went on record on television saying it would be best to cut the Christmas cake in two and make Grandpa and Grandma eat in the kitchen.
The Brussels Commission also thinks that “if considered, any temporary loosening of rules on social gatherings and events should be accompanied by strict requirements for people to self-quarantine before and after for a number of days (preferably at least seven).”
Speaking of France, the government has not gone to this length but it will introduce a 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. curfew as of December 15 (excepting Christmas and New Year’s Eve) which the Commission devoutly favors.
As a conclusion, the document stresses that “All reporting Member States are actively looking into communication around COVID-19 vaccination, and many are preparing dedicated communication plans. The Commission will work closely with Member States to support their communication efforts towards citizens on COVID-19 vaccines so that citizens can make informed decisions.”
Informed by the Member States’ communication efforts, that is!
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Calls for 'immediate suspension' of Pfizer vaccine over fears of sterilization |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:37 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- No Replies
|
|
Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon request a stop of all corona vaccination studies and call for co-signing the petition
2020 News | December 1, 2020
On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).
Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon demand that the studies – for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers – should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned scientists against the vaccine and the study design.
On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se.
Furthermore, they demand that it must be excluded, e.g. by means of animal experiments, that risks already known from previous studies, which partly originate from the nature of the corona viruses, can be realized. The concerns are directed in particular to the following points:- The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
- The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
- The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
- The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.
CALL FOR HELP: Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon ask as many EU citizens as possible to co-sign their petition by sending the e-mail prepared here to the EMA.
Nachtrag: Wegen teilweiser Überlastung der Server hier der Inhalt der E-Mail und die Kontaktadressen zum späteren Selbst-Versenden:
An: press@ema.europa.eu; petitionEMA@corona-ausschuss.com
Betreff: Co-signing the petition of Dr. Wodarg, Germany, and Dr. Yeadon, UK (submitted on 1-Dec-2020)
Dear Sir or Madam, I am hereby co-signing the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon to support their urgent request to stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b (EudraCT Number 2020-002641-42) and other clinical trials. The full text of the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon can be found here: https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2...hibits.pdf I hereby respectfully request that EMA act on the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon immediately. Regards
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1976 Excerpt - No Insults in Defense of the Truth |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:28 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre:
Quote:"We should pray also for the faithful who maintain Tradition that they may always preserve a strong, firm attitude, but not an attitude of contempt for persons, insult to persons, insult to bishops. We have the advantage of possessing the truth - we are not at fault - just as the Church has the superiority over error of having the truth: that superiority is hers. Because we have the conviction that we are upholding the truth, that the truth must make headway, that truth must convince, it is not our person. It is not outbursts of anger, or insults to people, which will give added weight to truth. On the contrary, that could cast doubt upon our possession of the truth. Becoming angry and insulting shows that we do not completely trust in the weight of truth, which is the weight of God Himself. It is in God that we trust, in Truth which is God, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ. What can be surer than that? Nothing. And little by little that truth makes, and will make, its way. It must. So let us resolve that in our expressions and attitudes we shall not despise and insult people, but be firm against error- absolute firm, without compromise, without relaxation, because we are with Our Lord. It is a question of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the glory of the Blessed Trinity is at stake, not the infinite glory in heaven, but the glory here below on earth. It is truth; and we defend it at any cost, whatever happens ." (Archbishop Lefebvre, "A Talk to the Seminarians at Econe," September, 18, 1976, A Bishop Speaks)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1974 Conference on the Crisis of the Church and the Priesthood |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:25 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
CRISIS OF THE CHURCH AND THE PRIESTHOOD
Tourcoing, France
January 30, 1974
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I must thank my brother Michael for introducing me, and I also thank all those who, like him, have generously given their time to getting the lecture room ready and sending out the invitations to which you have responded in such numbers. Thank you. I should like also to thank his Worship the Mayor of Tourcoing, who has graciously come to this lecture, and to express all the joy it gives me to be once more among my fellow-citizens, or, shall I say, fellow members of the department since some come from beyond the boundaries of the township, and I have given many lectures both in France and abroad on the subject of which I shall treat this evening.
First of all, however, I should like to speak of my relations with the various traditionalist movements. It is a question which I believe I should clarify straight away, since I have not come here at the request of any group. The fact that it was my brother who introduced me is sufficient proof of that. I can but encourage those who are working in defense of the Faith, for the preservation of the Catholic Faith. That is why, in fact, I encourage such movements. Nevertheless, I do not want to be linked with any particular group. I am anxious to remain wholly independent.
There has, for example, been an attempt to persuade me to say that it was I who took the initiative in the purchase of the minor seminary at Flavigny. That is not true. I had no responsibility for the purchase of the minor seminary at Flavigny. It was Fr. Coache who took the initiative. He asked me whether he had my backing. I told him that there was indeed a lack of junior seminaries in France today and that I could not but rejoice if there were a good one.
Before coming to the heart of the matter I should also like to make it clear to you that the judgments I shall pass on the documents before me and other documents do not imply that I am passing judgment on their authors. The judgment of persons I would rather leave to God. It seems to me, however, that faced with the documents given us, even those coming from Rome, important documents touching our faith, we cannot remain indifferent. We are bound to judge in accordance with tradition, in accordance with the faith of the Church, in accordance with the magisterium of the Church, whether a particular document is in true conformity with the orthodoxy always taught us by the Church. But it is not my wish to pass judgment on persons.
The Holy Office, when judging a document, does so on the basis of the meaning of the words and expressions used in the document. Cardinal Ottaviani, while still Prefect or at least Secretary of the Holy Office, was reproached with failing to summon to Rome the writers whose books were being judged. He replied: “There is no need to know the author of a work to say whether the views held in the work are good or bad.” A pharmacist need not know the source of a poison to decide whether a particular ingredient is harmful. I should like to adopt the point of View of the Holy Office in judging the documents on their content.
Lastly, I want to say that I have not come to take up a collection for the seminary. Obviously, I should gladly accept whatever you choose to give me, but Providence supplies all my financial needs to a truly amazing extent. I give special thanks to St. Joseph, who is our provider. I have not even come seeking recruits for the seminary, vocations as seminarians, vocations as lay Brothers, for we have Brothers also in our Society. We now have nuns as well, and postulants are beginning to come forward. If God sends them, Deo gratias. But it is not for that that I have come. I can say in all sincerity that if I agree to give lectures, it is to defend, guard, and rekindle our faith. I believe that we are living at a time when our faith is everywhere attacked and is in real danger. Our faith, we must admit, is in danger from within the Church. Nowadays we are sent publications and instructions no longer in conformity with orthodoxy, which do not correspond to the Catholic Faith. We have always been taught the Faith taught by all the councils. We cannot remain indifferent to this tragic situation. I should like to take a specific example of the situation, the one which seems to me most dramatic, the one which touches the depths of our heart and of our Christian and Catholic Faith, that of the priesthood. If the Church is affected, if the Church is in danger, the priesthood is the first to suffer the consequences. Nothing can touch the Church without immediately reaching him who is at the heart of the Church-the priest. It is for that reason that I should like to begin by speaking of this crisis in the Church and its nature.
St. Paul said to Timothy in his first Epistle: “Depositum custodi-keep that which is committed to thy trust” (6:20-21). Even at that time what was that trust if not the truths which St. Paul had been able to impart to Timothy. Guard these truths, treasure them. “Devita profanas vocum novitates-Take heed of new words,” or simply “Vocum novitates.” Take heed not only of new ideas, but even of new words. Beware of whatever savors of false knowledge; beware of false doctrine, for those who speak thus lose the faith. “Circa fidem exciderunt.” They err in matters of faith. Hence we too must be wary in all that we receive, in all that is put into our hands today.
Let us then speak of this crisis in the priesthood-the fact of crisis. I think you know as much about it as I; I do not need to go into details. We could give statistics, we could cite facts, but these facts, unfortunately be it said, have been shown on television. For the past ten years the priest has been much talked about, and in many ways. Unquestionably, there are ill-informed ways of speaking of the priest. But unfortunately, we must admit the grievous fact that there are priests who are leaving the priesthood and giving up their sacerdotal duties. Some are doing so with the permission of the authorities, some without; for some the circumstances have been truly painful; others appear to have lost the faith in what they can profess. Some, the majority as I believe, are priests who are suffering from the crisis in the Church, since the priest, specifically the man of God, the man of the Church, cannot but suffer when he sees his Mother attacked as she is and going through a crisis that has rarely been as grave as that which we are experiencing today.
We should do well then to define more clearly and distinctly the essence of this crisis in the priesthood. It seems to me that the priest is being deprived of his Mother-the Church. There is, at least, a tendency to distort the nature of his Mother the Church, to take away or distort what he holds most dear, the sacrifice of the Mass and its liturgy. Lastly, his catechism is taken away. Tell me what is left to the priest if his Mother the Church is taken away, if his sacrifice of the Mass is taken away, if his catechism is taken away. What is left for the priest?
What was the priest’s ideal, what was the seminarian contemplating on entering the seminary, at least in our day? To serve the Church, to serve his Mother Church. Why? Because he believed the Church to be the sole way of salvation, the only way by which souls might be saved. Then it was worth while to consecrate his life to the Church for the sake of saving souls. But if one no longer has faith in that Church, if one believes that all religions save souls, in that case what is the good of serving the Church? Leave souls to their religion, leave to each his conscience. The sacrifice of one’s self is not worth while if all religions alike ensure the salvation of souls.
The nature of the Church is being distorted. The Church is no longer presented as a society necessary for salvation, as the way necessary for salvation. She is presented as a useful means of salvation-a very different thing. It involves changing the very definition of the Church, and that is an extremely serious matter, for it cuts at the root of the whole missionary spirit of the Church.
Why have missionaries crossed oceans, why have they exposed themselves to the fatal maladies of the tropics, if not to save souls, if their presence is not needful for the salvation of souls, but merely useful to social progress and development, to social justice and material progress? It was not for that that the priest became a priest, not for that that the missionary crosses oceans. It was to convert
souls, for he was convinced that many souls are lost if they do not know our Lord Jesus Christ.
Moreover, it is not true that one can be saved through other religions. I say advisedly through other religions, not within other religions. It is untrue that one can save one’s soul through other religions; one can save one’s soul only through the Catholic Church, through our Lord Jesus Christ. No other name under heaven has been given us for our salvation. That is what St. Peter told us: “There is no other name under heaven than that of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It follows that there is no means other than His Church, which is His mystic Bride to whom our Lord has given all His graces. No grace in this world, no grace in the history of humanity, will be bestowed unless it be through the Church and through the Blessed Virgin Mary. Then souls cannot be saved within other religions? Yes, they may be saved. How are they saved? They are saved by the baptism of desire though unexpressed.
As you know, there are three kinds of baptism: baptism of water, baptism of fire, baptism of desire. Baptism of desire may be explicit as in the case of the catechumens whom we had in Africa and of others still there-people, adults who ask to be baptized and so have the explicit desire for baptism, and who may be saved even before receiving the baptism of water.
Sometimes in Africa we had fine catechumens who would say to us: “But Father, I have never been baptized. If I die now, I shall go to hell.” We used to reply: “No, if you are well disposed in your heart, good; if you love God and seek to do His will, if you desire baptism, you already have the grace.” Clearly, that grace will be fuller and more abundant on the day they receive baptism unless there is some obstacle such as a mortal sin to which they continue to cling.
Thus there exists the baptism of explicit desire for the catechumens, and the baptism of implicit desire, which lies in the act of doing God’s will. Those souls, whether Protestant, Buddhist, or Moslem, who have implicitly this sincere desire to do the will of God may have the desire for baptism and so receive supernatural grace, the grace of eternal life, but this comes through the Church. Hence, through this implicit desire, baptism unites them with the soul of the Church, and it is through the Church, never through their religion, that they can save their souls.
False religions are contrary to the Holy Ghost, they cannot be the channel of the Holy Ghost. Read what the Church states in her official documents: here is a document taken from the little book probably well known to many of you-Father Dumeige’s La Foi Catholique. This is what this document prepared for Vatican Council I has to say:
Quote:The Church is a society wholly necessary for obtaining salvation. By that all may understand that Christ’s Church is the necessary society for obtaining salvation. Its necessity is as vital as that of sharing, and being united with Christ and His Mystical Body. It is wholly necessary, not only by virtue of our Lord’s precept, but as a necessary means, since, in the order of salvation designed by Providence, the communication of the Holy Spirit, the participation in truth and in life cannot be attained save in the Church and through the Church, whose head is Christ. That is the doctrine of the Church.
“Moreover it is a dogma of faith that none may be saved outside the Church.” One either has the faith or one has not. It was not I who invented the fact; these are not my personal ideas, this is the teaching of the Church. Now, however, in all the documents given us we gather the impression that one may save one’s soul in all religions, that all religions lead to the salvation of humanity, that we are all traveling together on the road to salvation. These notions are wholly untrue, and they are destroying yet again the missionary spirit of the Church. It is hardly surprising that there are no more missionary vocations.
In the same way as the Church is being distorted and that the priest no longer knows just why he has been ordained, so the definition of his faith has been distorted. This is a matter which may be difficult to understand, but is yet of capital importance in holy Church. A definition of faith exists, it is unalterable. Now there is an attempt at changing even the definition of faith.
Faith is the acceptance by the intelligence of the truth revealed by the Word of God, by reason of the authority of God who reveals it. We believe a truth coming to us from outside, from the Word of God, a truth which must be believed because of the authority of God who reveals. That is the definition of faith. What is being done to faith now? It has become an inner feeling. That is the modernist definition of faith condemned by Pope St. Pius X.
Faith is not a personal feeling, it is not something purely subjective, adhesion of the soul to God each on his own account, each following his individual conscience-that is not faith. It is precisely this conception which altogether destroys all the authority of God, all the authority of the Church. Since, however, faith comes to us from without, we must submit to it; all are bound to submit to it. “He who believes shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). It was our Lord who said that. The Faith is altogether imposed, it is imposed on us from without, it is not a purely personal feeling, an affection for God, a sentiment for the deity.
Now, that is just what the modernists thought, and what unhappily many are thinking today, who are beginning to transform the concept of faith. It provided some explanation of the idea that all religions save, because each has a faith according to his individual conscience, and all faiths save. Consciences vary, one believes after this manner, another after another. It matters little, provided the conscience is directed towards God and is united with God. It is utterly untrue. Look, that is exactly what the anti-modernist oath, which was taken by all the older priests here this evening, tells us. Moreover, we read it during the Council:
Quote:I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our Creator and Lord. [/url][url=http://redirect.viglink.com?key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&subId=6872759&u=http%3A//www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm]www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm
That is the meaning of faith, and it is wholly different. It would be well to reiterate these things. We are forgetting them.
Unfortunately, I must present you with a document published in recent weeks by the official Catechetics Commission of the French episcopacy from its headquarters in the office of the Archbishopric of Paris. This is what those persons have to say on the subject of faith. Believe me, I am not making it up, merely reading it aloud.
First, on the subject of truth: “Truth is not something received ready-made, but something in the making.” Truth, then, is something in the making like something in the process of creation. Man does not receive the truth, he builds it up. Look at the complete difference in outlook. To receive the truth of God, of the Word of God, of the Church, of the magisterium of the Church is one thing-something which has always been stated. We received our catechism and studied it as something coming to us from God. We believe in it because it is the authority of God which reveals it. But truth is not self-creating, it does not create itself from the subconscious, from ourselves; it is not we who create truth. This is terrible. Is it not? Such questions are serious, very serious.
From all this there follow consequences very important to our faith, for example: “For we shall then perceive that it is something very different from an intellectual adhesion or belief in the things believed, but rather an actual and active life of relations between God and Man.” It is no longer faith; it is Modernist faith. I infinitely regret that these should be documents issuing from official commissions of the episcopate. I deplore it. You have heard what I have just read you about the Faith which has always been taught us, and this is what is said in these documents! It is deeply regrettable! Either we believe or we do not believe. We either believe in the authority of God, or we do not.
It is the same for the dogma of our salvation. This is the entry on salvation: “Salvation-two catechetical schemata.” Salvation-Redemption, that is the traditional salvation, and here is the traditional entry: “We have lost the grace of God, but Christ has redeemed us by His cross and has entrusted to His Church the means of salvation.” Good-that is indeed what we have always been taught, that it is the Church which saves us.
“Let us hope that other men may be saved likewise.” Let us hope and pray, and one might have added “and let us pray that, in order that other men too may find salvation, there may be vocations to set out to save them,” whence comes the missionary spirit of the Church.
There follows a new schema contrary to the former which speaks of Salvation-Covenant. “The future of humanity.” Of humanity? We are already somewhat bewildered. What exactly does that mean? “The future of humanity is union with God, sealed by Jesus on Easter day; while we still knew not God, the community of believers answers for it in History.” This is what the author of the schema has to say:
Quote:These two schemata seek to embrace the general outlines of two concepts of salvation. They are deliberately summary so that they may not be regarded as creeds embodying all the essentials. Let us say once again-only schemata are in question, and the catechist may be assured of the suitability for our times of a presentation of salvation akin to that of the second schema; all the same he should beware of despising those who recognize themselves in the first schema.
It is a very serious matter. We are given a schema on salvation which is no longer that taught by the Church for two thousand years.
Vague terms: “the future of humanity,” “union with God”- what do these mean? We have been told of truth which is self-creating, which grows within us. Once again we find all the modernist errors condemned by Pope St. Pius X. I am sorry to be obliged to record the fact, but record it we must. We must not be afraid to affirm it, because little by little we shall become Protestants and modernists. Without a shadow of doubt we shall be slowly but surely poisoned. Ultimately, we shall come to find ourselves, as the majority of the faithful and the bishops found themselves to be Arians in the time of Arianism-without being aware of it, we shall find ourselves Protestants and modernists.
The priest’s greatest sorrow is the distortion of his Church. The second wound he suffers is that fundamentally he is deprived of his very raison d’étre. What, in all religions, is the real raison d’étre of the priest? Priest and sacrifice-the two ideas are absolutely essential and inseparably linked. There is no sacrifice without a priest, there is no priest without a sacrifice. The idea of the priest is meaningless apart from sacrifice-the idea of sacrifice cannot be understood apart from the priest. This is true of all religions, but most especially of our holy religion.
It was God himself who was concerned to give us this sacrifice, to put it into our hands and institute a special sacrament which confers a character on the priest, a character which associates him with and gives him a share in the priesthood of our Lord to offer the sacrifice. The unique sacrifice of the cross is still made on our altars. It is the same Priest and the same Victim who offers Himself on our altars. Our Lord is the true Priest; we ourselves are but priest-instruments who have received this character. We are but instruments of the one Priest who is our Lord to offer the one Victim who is also our Lord, present on the altar.
You can see the importance of preserving these fundamental ideas. What does the seminarian regard as the most beautiful of all things: the call to mount the steps to the altar. Throughout our time in the seminary we lived for that-to go from minor orders to become subdeacons, then deacons. Soon I shall ascend the steps of the altar, I shall offer the Body and Blood of Our Lord. By pronouncing the words of consecration I can bring God down upon the altar as, by Her Fiat, the Virgin Mary brought down Her Son into her womb. I shall have the same power as the Most Holy Virgin Mary when She uttered Her Fiat.
When we ourselves speak the words of consecration, Jesus comes down from heaven under the species of bread and wine. It is a miraculous, unbelievable honor for such poor creatures as we. Then it is worth while to be a priest to go up to the altar, to offer the Divine Sacrifice, to continue the sacrifice of the cross. That is the liturgy. That is the Mass. To give Holy Communion-what can a priest do better than give Holy Communion? There is nothing better he can do than give our Lord Jesus Christ, present in the Eucharist. Therein lies the very reason for his celibacy. We need seek no further.
It is often said that a priest’s celibacy is for the furtherance of his ministry. The priest is overburdened by the cares of his ministry. Night and day he must hold himself at the disposal of the faithful. Therefore he should be a celibate and a virgin. But it is not only that. If that were all, the doctors here could say the same. They too are called out night and day. They too work all day long if they would fain devote themselves to their patients. Probably they have even less time than the priest. The same is doubtless true of many other people here who come from different walks of life. There is something else: it is the greatness of his priesthood. It is his intimate nearness to God. It comes essentially through the power conferred on him to speak the words of consecration and bring our Lord down upon the altar.
That is the inmost reason for the priest’s virginity. Just as it is meet and right that the Virgin should have been a virgin because she was so closely linked with the mystery of the Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation, it was fitting that she should be a virgin. Well! The same is true of the priest who is so closely bound to God, so near to God, so near to our Lord Jesus Christ that it is fitting that he too should give his whole life and all his activity for God.
If the priesthood is thus defined, the true value of the priestly vocation is understandable. On the other hand, if the sacrifice of the Mass is being slowly but surely distorted to make it no more than a meal, just a meal in memory of the Last Supper, it is no longer worthwhile to be a priest. It is not worthwhile because the president of an assembly can preside at a memorial meal. Indeed, we need do no more than delegate one of us to be responsible for this memorial. There is no more need of the sacerdotal character since there is no more sacrifice. In that case the Real Presence is no longer necessary either. Why is the Real Presence of our Lord necessary? Precisely because the victim must be offered. If there is to be a sacrifice, the victim must necessarily be present. But if there is no longer a sacrifice, there is no more need of a victim. If there is no longer a victim, there is no longer need of the Real Presence of our Lord; a spiritual presence is amply sufficient. If the sacrifice is changed into a meal, we have adopted Protestant thinking in its entirety.
So much must be admitted-the facts are there yet again. I am not inventing anything; I will give you a few examples. Here, for example, is the little booklet on Masses for small or special groups issued by the Conference of Swiss Bishops and the Swiss Commission on the Liturgy. This is how it speaks of the Mass:
Quote:The Lord’s Supper brings about, above all, communion with Christ. It is the same communion as that effected by Jesus during His earthly life when He sat down to table with sinners, a communion continued since the day of the Resurrection in the eucharistic meal. The Lord invites His friends to gather together and He will be among them.
No! That is not the Mass. That meal to which our Lord invites us, promising to be in our midst as in that far-off meal in Palestine, is not the Mass. No, we are sharing in His Body and His Blood present on the holy altar and we are offering them. Our Lord offers Himself to God as a Victim for the salvation of souls and it is thus that the Redemption continues, that the expiation for our sins continues. For, if there is no longer a sacrifice, if blood is no longer shed, there is no more remission of sins. A simple memorial does not suffice for the remission of sins.
Here are other examples in plenty. Take, for example, the Strasbourg Evening School of Theology: “We must realize today that we are faced with a real cultural mutation. A particular manner of celebrating the memorial of the Lord was bound up with a religious universe which is no longer ours.” In the light of this, it is obvious that the definition of the Mass has entirely changed. This idea of change, that today we are utterly different, that we no longer have a single idea resembling those of our forebears, is surely an absurdity. Are we really men wholly different from those born a century ago? We are surfeited with having the idea dinned into us with intent to change our faith. If all things change, if the world changes, if humanity changes, if conditions change as claimed here: “The memorial to our Lord has been bound up with a religious universe which is no longer ours”-it is quickly said, and everything disappears: “a religious universe which is no longer ours.” So we must begin from zero.
Begin, and we come to what the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Strasbourg says concerning our Lord’s Real Presence:
Quote:In the same way we speak of the presence of an orator or of an actor, thereby implying a quality other than a simple topographical “being there.” To sum up, someone may be present by virtue of a symbolic action which he does not perform physically, but which others accomplish by faithful interpretation of his most deep-seated intention. For example, the Bayreuth Festival doubtless realizes a presence of Richard Wagner superior in intensity to what is shown in works or occasional concerts dedicated to the musician. It is in such a perspective, I believe, that we should regard the eucharistic presence of Christ.
An author’s play is staged and the writer’s presence likened to the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. Well! A Dean of the Faculty of Theology in the University of Strasbourg! How can you expect seminarians listening to that sort of stuff to keep the faith-I did not invent this; I am inventing nothing.
Here is another document from the Centre Jean-Bart, official center of the Archbishopric of Paris; there are incredible statements, for instance Christ’s Eucharist Today (no out-of-date publication, it is dated March 17, 1973): “Is not the Mass our Lord’s Supper, an invitation to communion?” There is no more mention of sacrifice.Then: “At the heart of the Mass lies a story”-There is a story. The same thing is stated in the Swiss Bishops’ little booklet. “There lies a story.” No, it is not a story. The Canon is not a story. Look at old missals. Above the “Communicantes” you will see “Infra actionem.”
Out of curiosity, look at your missals. ‘Infra actionem-during the action.” What does that mean? It means that the priest performs an act, a sacrificial act. Transubstantiation is an act, the sacrifice is an act, not merely a narration. That is why the priest bends forward and prepares himself for that wonderful action which finds its consummation at the moment when our Lord will be present on the holy altar. It is at that moment that our Lord offers Himself to His Father and expiates our sins. It is an act, not a narration. Now, “at the heart of the Mass there is a story.” No, it is not a story.
What we are celebrating then is a memorial of our redemption. Memorial, a word which it is essential to understand. It is not a question of commemorating a past event, as though meeting simply in remembrance. Neither is it a question of the renewal of that event. Christ died and rose again once and forever-that can never happen again. “Can never happen again”? Is not our Lord able to perform a miracle and repeat for us His sacrifice on Calvary? They would seem to say that it is impossible. The sacrifice on Calvary took place once and forever. That is utterly false, the sacrifice of Calvary is really there, bloodlessly renewed on the altar. That is the only way in which it differs from the sacrifice on Calvary. In the one, our Lord offered Himself in a bloody manner, in the other He offers Himself in an unbloody manner on our altars. But His Blood is present, His Body is present. If one no longer believes that, one no longer believes in anything in Holy Church. For it is all there, all Christian spirituality is contained in the sacrifice of the Mass.
We must never forget that. Perhaps there has been too much talk of the Eucharist, Communion, and not enough of the sacrifice of the Mass. I believe we should go back to the fundamental ideas, to that fundamental idea which has been that of the whole tradition of the Church, the sacrifice of the Mass, which is the heart of the Church. Communion is but the fruit, the fruit of the sacrifice; the communion of the faithful, communion with the Victim who offers Himself and is offered. We must go back to these essential principles.
Firstly, if we abandon those essential principles there is no longer any reason for the priesthood. For the priest, if he no longer has his sacrifice to offer, has no more reason for existence. There is no reason for being a religious. Why? What is a religious? A religious is a person who offers his whole life and all he does in union with the Victim who offers Himself on the altar. The best proof is that whenever one makes his solemn profession, whenever there is a profession, or a renewal of profession, it is always at the altar. It is always in union with the holy Victim, and it is that which is the joy and consolation of both monks and nuns, the knowledge that publicly and officially, within the Church and received by the Church, they have offered themselves completely and for all their lives with the Victim who offers Himself on the altar. If there is no longer a Victim offering Himself on the altar, there is no longer any reason for being a monk or a nun.
For you, too, faithful Christians, it is the meaning of your Christian life. What is the meaning of your life? What is the meaning of your baptism? It is the offering of your selves, the offering of your whole lives, wholly, with our Lord Jesus Christ as the Victim on the altar. That is the consolation of your lives. It is that which has power to sustain you in your trials. Go into the hospitals and talk with the dying, with those preparing to meet death. Unless you speak to them of the sacrifice of our Lord, unless you unite their sacrifice with that of our Lord, you may talk of what you please, they will not understand. But speak to them rather of our Lord offering Himself on the cross, on the altars. Say to them: “Unite your suffering and your pain with those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and at the same time you will save your soul and those of others.” Then the sick will understand that suffering is worthwhile.
Among those who have been in prison and in concentration camps, how many have returned to the faith when they thought they were suffering and were offering themselves with the Victim who offers Himself on the altar. You see, if that is not so, if there is no cross in our lives, if there is no longer the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the altar, there is nothing left in our Christian lives, it is finished. That is of the utmost importance: in some way all Christian spirituality hangs upon the sacrifice of the altar. We have no right, then, to say that Holy Mass is only a meal.
Well, we must look things in the face. Our altar of sacrifice, a stone altar, a massive altar on which to offer the sacrifice, has been transformed into a table, a mere dining table. In many cases, the relics of martyrs preserved within the altar stones have been removed. At least there was an altar stone which actually represented the stone of sacrifice since the sacrifice is offered on an altar of stone. And why the relics of martyrs? Because they offered their blood for our Lord Jesus Christ. Is not this communion of the Blood of our Lord with the blood of the martyrs an admirable evocation encouraging us to offer our lives with our Lord’s as did the martyrs? But now the relics of the martyrs are removed.
If the Mass is a meal, it is easy to understand the priests turning towards the faithful. One does not turn one’s back on one’s guests at a meal. If, however, it is a sacrifice, the sacrifice is offered to God, not to the faithful. Hence it is understandable that the priest should be at the head of the faithful and turn towards God, towards the crucifix; he is offering the sacrifice to God. When, for their instruction, he must speak to the people, it is natural that he should turn to the faithful. So soon, however, as he speaks to God, it is he who acts, from the moment of the Offertory it is he who, with his priestly character, goes into action-it is not the faithful.
There too there is a confused notion. The priesthood of the faithful is being confused with that of the priest. The priesthood of the priest is essentially different from that of the faithful. That was stated by the cardinals in their commentaries on the Dutch Catechism. They required the Dutch Catechism to go back to that notion: the ministerial priesthood. There are ten points on which they asked the makers of the Dutch Catechism to alter the text. Nothing at all has been changed. The Committee of Cardinals’statement on the new catechism was printed at the back of the edition, but it very soon disappeared. Now the Dutch Catechisms have been translated into all languages and there is no sign of the emendations made and required by the cardinals, emendations on capital points, points fundamental to our faith.
“Beware of diminishing the greatness of the ministerial priesthood which, by its sharing in the priesthood of Christ, differs from the general priesthood of the faithful not only in degree but in essentials.” That is what the cardinals say. Now, it must not be forgotten that most catechisms have been compiled under the influence of the Dutch Catechism, the new catechism.
There are many more serious matters that we have no right to minimize. If there is a tendency to regard the sacrifice of the Mass as a meal, it is natural to take Communion in the hand. If it is a meal, it is a morsel of bread which is distributed, a memento, a memorial. But when we know that our Lord is present! When we know who our Lord is! We cannot indeed know, we have no means of telling! Reflect that all the angels of heaven bow before our Lord, that at the very name of Jesus every knee is bent whether in heaven, on earth, or in hell. Yet we, we are afraid to kneel in the presence of Him whose name, if it be but spoken on the Day of Judgment, will bring to their knees all humanity, all the souls in heaven, all the angels, and all those in hell. We should think of these things.
Lastly, a final wound is inflicted on the priest. His catechism is taken from him. As I have just spoken of this I will not stress the matter. But the catechism has been transformed, and it has been done under the inspiration of the Dutch Catechism. Not long ago I read in an investigation carried out by the Péleren (Pilgrim) a questionnaire addressed to mothers of families. They were asked what they thought of the new catechism, of the new methods, and of the new teaching given to their children. Well, I believe I am not mistaken in saying that for every nine or ten replies sent in, only two were at all favorable to the new method and the new catechism. All the other replies from mothers were unfavorable. “We find,” they said, “that our children no longer know anything. They no longer know even their prayers, they do not know how to make their confession, they remember nothing.” That is the considered opinion given to the Péleren by mothers of families. It is a serious matter.
Now such complaints are reaching us daily. It was once my intention to give my seminarians a year of spiritual training before entering the seminary, a full year of spiritual preparation as it might have been conceived in the past, that is asceticism and mysticism. We would speak to them of the Virtues, of the gifts of the spirit, of the beatitudes, and kindred subjects such as the presence in them of the Holy Spirit and supernatural grace. We discovered, however, that they no longer have any knowledge of fundamental concepts.
We finally decided that it would be essential to give these young men, who have come here with intent to become priests and the longing to become true priests, a straightforward course on the catechism during their year of spiritual preparation. We had to do a revision of everything. All our ideas have had to be reconsidered. It is unthinkably, inconceivably serious. Do we realize or not that our faith is eternal life?
During the rite of baptism, when the priest baptizes, he asks the godfather: “What does faith bring you? Faith brings you eternal life.” Has eternal life meaning for us? Or does it mean nothing? If faith truly brings us eternal life we have no right to lessen the meaning of our faith with a “Well, well” or “We are told we should do that. We have been told that we must think on these lines. What would you have me do-I do not understand the matter.” You have no right to speak in that way. You were brought up in the faith. One has no right to change the faith. St. Paul himself said, that if an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached do not hearken. That is what St. Paul said to the faithful. Let me say yet again that I am not defending my personal ideas but the whole tradition of the Church. We have no right to minimize our catechism. We must return to our age-old catechisms; we must, otherwise our children will know nothing, and they will lose the faith. We have no right to let our children abandon the Catholic Faith. We must teach them the true catechism.
That is the position regarding the priesthood today. But how is it possible that things should have come to this pass? It is incredible! How can one think of putting into the hands of children catechisms which no longer give a true reflection of the traditional faith?
I am sorry that I have not brought you the Canadian catechisms to show you what those catechisms are like. It is an aberration, an abomination. Obviously, most catechisms and pamphlets on the catechisms go into lengthy details on sexual life. One might really imagine that children need to be taught nothing else. And the way! The way is calculated to give them a kind of obsession. On every page of these catechisms and the two or three pamphlets which deal with these matters one sees in capital letters: Sex, Sex, Sex everywhere. It is on every page throughout the book-and is enough to breed an absolute obsession in the child. When one reflects that at the end of these books there is an Imprimatur: “Bishop Couderce, Bishop of Saint-Hyacinth, President of the Episcopal Commission for Catechetics,” I must confess that for me it is a mystery past understanding.
How have we reached such a point. Well, I believe we must go back to the beginning. We could obviously go back to original sin. We could also go back to the devil. He clearly has a hand in it, of that there can be no shadow of doubt. To achieve such action in the Church, to accomplish the self-destruction of which the Holy Father has spoken, the devil must be in it. It could not happen otherwise. He’s there. You can be sure of that.
I believe, however, that we must go back to all those errors which popes have condemned over the last two centuries. Above all we have experienced liberalism, Communism, Marxism, socialism, Sillonism, modernism, and all the other “-isms” repeatedly condemned by the popes. During these two centuries we have had acts of condemnation by the Holy Fathers. Take, for example, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Immortale Dei. Pope Leo XIII condemns the new law. What he means by the new law is a wholly new conception-a conception of life, a conception of the world, a conception of the Church utterly different from the true conception of the Church. It is based on the principles of Freemasonry as summarized in those three famous words: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” which may be very good but which can also stand for very bad things. If the liberty is a total liberty, i.e., if everything is left to conscience, there are no more laws, there is an end to all authority. That is what is chiefly attacked in the words “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” Authority is destroyed. That implies the freedom of my conscience. I do as I please regardless of law and of personal authority. Equality-we are all equal. We want nothing to do with authority.
Fraternity-but Fatherless. There is no Father. There is a crowd fraternity. All the individuals embrace one another but there is no Father. How is it possible to conceive a fraternity lacking paternity-with no Father? It is unimaginable, but so it is. That is what we were to be taught: the ruin of authority, and through that very event an attack on the authority of God. It is a direct attack on God, since all authority comes from God and through sharing in the authority of God. That was stated by St. Paul. God is thus attacked directly. The best proof is that the Freemasons have offered sacrifices to the goddess Reason, to Man, Man become God. Moreover, the Freemasons are saying just the same things today. Never let it be forgotten. We must not believe that it is all a thing of the past.
“If to raise Man to the altar rather than set God there is the sin of Lucifer,” writes the former Grand Master of the Grand Orient, Mr. Mitterand, “every humanist since the time of the Renaissance has been guilty of this sin.” It was one of the complaints brought against the Freemasons when, for the first time, they were excommunicated by Pope Clement XII in 1738. Unhappily, this Freemason tells us: Obviously, all that is seen through the eyes of a Freemason. I am not saying that I concur with what that man says. But it is those people who are behind all these changes. You may be sure that they have not been idle in the Council and, you may be very sure, round about it. “Something has changed in the Church,” says Mitterand, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient.Obviously, all that is seen through the eyes of a Freemason. I am not saying that I concur with what that man says. But it is those people who are behind all these changes. You may be sure that they have not been idle in the Council and, you may be very sure, round about it. “Something has changed in the Church,” says Mitterand, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient.
Between the policy of Pius XII and that of his successors there is a major difference. For Pius XII the common good has a reactionary character, almost fascist and distinctly anti-Communist. For John XXIII and afterwards for Paul VI, the common good has a markedly progressive character. The relationship of the powers has changed in the world, and the Church realizes the fact.
Obviously, all that is seen through the eyes of a Freemason. I am not saying that I concur with what that man says. But it is those people who are behind all these changes. You may be sure that they have not been idle in the Council and, you may be very sure, round about it. “Something has changed in the Church,” says Mitterand, the Grand Master of the Grand Orient.The replies set down by the Pope to such burning questions as the celibacy of the clergy and birth control are fiercely contested within the very bosom of the Church. Some bishops, some priests and members of the laity have questioned the words of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. In the eyes of a Freemason a man who disputes dogma is already a Freemason without his apron. That is what those people are saying, and they know what they are talking about.
Here is another book written by a Freemason, Ecumenism Seen by a Freemason, by Mr. Marsaudon of the Scottish Rite. This Marsaudon deals with ecumenism and the ecumenism which was obtained during the Council. “Catholics, especially conservatives, should not forget that all roads lead to God. They should abide by this brave idea of freedom of conscience which, and here one may truly speak of revolution, starting from our Masonic lodges, has spread magnificently above the doctrine of St. Peter.”
Well! what is there to be said? It is all too true, alas, that the Council showed an unwillingness to define its terms. Hence the ambiguous and equivocal terminology used. And from these ambiguous and equivocal terms the postconciliar results have been derived. Fr. Schillebeeckx himself expressly admitted it and even printed it in a review: “We have used equivocal terms during the Council, and we know what we will afterwards draw from them.” Those people knew what they were doing since on the sub-committees there were all those modern theologians-Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, Rahner, Congar, Leclerc, and Murphy. They were all on the sub-commissions. This was because commissions could name subcommittees and so nominate those theologians who knew perfectly well where they were going. It is they who are guilty of the situation in which we find ourselves. Steeped as they are in modernist ideas, they are determined by all the means in their power to force the Church to become modernist. We must not let ourselves be hoodwinked by these tactics, must we? We must keep our eyes open.
What is the present method of forcing us to become modernists or to espouse liberal ideas? It is done by recycling, as I myself can witness within my own Congregation. In these formation sessions the first statement made is a statement repeated in the pamphlet The Faith, Word for Word, to which I referred a short time ago, published by the office of the Archbishopric of Paris. The first words are: “Admit the change.”
Admit the change: yet once more, as I have just said, we must make our seminarians, our priests, all those who come to these formation sessions realize that changes have been carried out and that we must change.
The second, more delicate, operation, consists in finding out the differing ways in which Christians have appreciated, in these diverse changes, the very fact of change. This observation is very important because opposition at present is a matter rather of spontaneous and unconscious attitudes to change than of a precise assessment of what is at stake in particular changes.
Two attitudes seem to emerge as typical though all possible transitional stages must be borne in mind. According to the first, some novelties are conceded after working out the way in which each follows the other. This is the attitude of many Christians, many Catholics who are yielding step by step. The second are prepared to accept a general updating of the rites of the Christian Faith on the threshold of a new culture.
I repeat:
The second are prepared to accept a general updating of the rites of the Christian Faith on the threshold of a new culture. It is enough for them to reassure themselves regularly of its fidelity to the Faith of the Apostles.
It is very late, and there will be time enough to deal with the Faith of the Apostles once the faith has been utterly destroyed. It goes Without saying that this operation, this new pattern of problems, is what must be inculcated into Catholics today.
If the second diagnosis is accepted, a third operation becomes necessary. “The Christian cannot fail to see a formidable danger to the faith in this.” That is what they themselves are admitting explicitly. It is terrible, incredible.
Will it not purely and simply disappear together with the dubious theories which brought it to that pass? He rightly demands a fundamental assurance which will carry him beyond those first sterile attitudes. That preliminary assurance should include the following elements at least.
You will see what is left to us of our Faith: “The Holy Ghost is just He who comes to the aid of believers in the workings of history.” We therefore have recourse to the Holy Ghost only. There is no longer a hierarchy, there is no longer a magisterium. Nothing is left. Christians are directly inspired by the Holy Ghost.
Today, all this is being put into practice by Pentecostalism. They hold meetings as we do. We might invoke the Holy Ghost and suddenly one of you would begin speaking in an unknown tongue- one might speak Arabic, another Armenian, another Hebrew. All this is of the devil; it cannot be otherwise. Hence the Holy Ghost comes first. Then the one constant in our faith is the person of Jesus Himself. Jesus, but what do they mean by Jesus?
Finally, this is the assurance they give to the faithful who are afraid of losing the faith by reason of this new presentation of questions: “Vatican II assuredly offers many indications of a change in the approach to problems.” We are indeed dealing with a campaign of subversion. There is no other word for it-a campaign of subversion.
We must come to a close. What are we to do?
We have looked quickly at an example of this subversion in the priest. Now, whatever touches the priest naturally affects the Church and the faithful. Well! We have no right to let ourselves engage in this adventure. It will pass as all heresies have passed, as all errors have passed, as all that has befallen and shaken the Church has passed. The Church has experienced storms. This one is terrible, for it attacks the very roots of the people’s faith, alas, through those whose duty it is to protect the faith of believers.
I have been asked to put together in book form the few lectures and articles I have published since the Council. As its epigraph [he is speaking of the present volume] I wrote: “We are being made to disobey all tradition through obedience.” You will reply: “But it is our priests who ask it of us. It is a bishop who asks it of us. Look, it is a document issued by the Catechetical Commission or some other official commission. What would you have me do?” Lose the faith, then! No, no. No-one, not even the pope, not even an angel, has the right to make you lose the faith. No-one has the right to make one lose the faith. Faith in Jesus Christ is our means of salvation, it is the way of salvation. We have no right to lose the Catholic Faith; rather we must do all we can to keep it alive within us.
You, Christian parents, protect the faith of your children in your families and in your homes. Read and re-read the Tridentine Catechism, the finest, the most perfect, and the most complete expression of our faith. Keep the faith in our schools also. Go into schools; if the children are being led to lose the faith, complain. Do not let your children’s teachers bring them to lose the faith. Go and find your priests. There are still good priests, and God knows what a joy it is for me to see so many of them here. Give them your support, encourage them; they are suffering from the situation. They feel that you are there and that you are making this appeal to them: “Fathers, protect our children’s faith. We beg you give us the truth that saves our souls.” They will do so and be happy to give you the truths of the faith. Ask that of all who should protect your faith.
Next, form prayer groups. We must pray, pray, pray. Form prayer groups, say the rosary both at home and in groups in the parish. Ask your priests to expound the rosary. Ask them to give you Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. Arrange services for the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and night vigils.
In recent years I have traveled a great deal and can assure you that there is a Catholic revival. Many Catholics feel that all is not well with the Church, that such a state of affairs must not be allowed to continue, that there is a danger of their losing the faith. Now these Catholics are getting together to say the rosary. They are asking the priest’s permission to keep night vigils of adoration in the churches. All that is splendid. God, in His goodness, will not be deaf to such a prayer and supplication. That is what we should do today.
I do not know whether all the apparitions of which we hear are authentic. I dare not assert it. But it is not surprising that the Blessed Virgin should come and help us to preserve the faith.
The more one may be encouraged to visit places where the Blessed Virgin has certainly appeared, the more circumspect we should be where there is no real confirmation of her coming. In any case, an almost certain sign of the truth of an apparition is the conversion of souls-not a dubious conversion, not a flash in the pan, but a true conversion.
There may often be about these pilgrimages occurrences not altogether normal, hysterics, unbalanced people, or people who seek nothing else; people who, once convinced of the reality of an apparition, have nothing else in their heads and feel that it is this which will save them. For them everything else in the Church ceases to count-the sacraments, the hierarchy, nothing matters any longer. The danger is great. We must not allow ourselves to be drawn along that road.
As for me, Providence gave me the opportunity of establishing a seminary, through a society of priests. Bishop Charriere signed the permit for its foundation. This society resembles the Missions Etmngéres. Yet, in my mind, no field of activity for these future priests is excluded. They will go wheresoever the bishops call them. If one day China opens its gates and Russia its doors, if they are called to South America, Africa, or Europe, wherever there is a demand and these priests are welcomed, they will go as a group. They will obviously go under contract to the bishop since they form a society. They are not priests coming from dioceses and returning to their dioceses to be incardinated there. No, they are priests, members of a brotherhood, members of a society, who will go where the Superior General sends them and where they are called by the bishops who wish to receive them but, of course, under certain conditions. I assure you that I am very happy in what God has given me to do at present when I see the generosity of these seminarians. I assure you, it is not wasted. Do not be discouraged or pessimistic. A really sound youth still exists. Our eighty seminarians are very good, very generous.
They are not children. Most of them have university degrees. There are two qualified doctors, three or four engineers, one of them a graduate of the Centrale, another who, after seven years’ study, is a Master of Biology, besides several graduates in Mathematics, Law, and Arts. They are not juveniles who have come to take shelter with me seeking I know not what, but young men who have thought the matter over seriously and come with intent to be true priests. Two-thirds are French; the next group numerically is that from the United States. Then one Canadian, three Englishmen, two Germans, four Swiss, an Italian, a Spaniard, and two Australians. You see, the seminary is well and truly international. They get on with one another perfectly.
From now on I shall have a little group of American priests in the United States who will gather together young seminarians and prepare them for the seminary at Ecône. Later, when God so wills, we shall have another seminary in the United States. I have also an establishment in London, one in Paris and two houses in Switzerland-the house in Fribourg and the house at Ecône, which is the senior seminary staffed by twelve professors coming from all over the world. Two of them are Dominican professors from the University of Fribourg. As a professional body I believe it to be as good as I could ever wish. I now have a house for my young priests at Albano, near Rome.
As soon as I have young priests they will be sent to Rome to become attached to it. I want them to be Romans, Roman Catholics, attached to the Sovereign Pontiff, attached to the magisterium of the Church and attached to the Catholic Church so that they may understand and may live on all the memories of Rome. That is briefly what I am doing and, I must say, doing with great satisfaction.
- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. A BISHOP SPEAKS. 2ND ed. KANSAS CITY: ANGELUS PRESS, 2007. pp. 163-186
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1976 Address to Remnant Audience |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:14 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
Introduction
More than forty years ago—during the disastrous reign of Pope Paul VI, the latest candidate for a Vatican-issued Halo Award, by the way—my father, Walter L. Matt, organized the first large scale public reception in the U.S. for the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
It was held at the Radisson South Hotel, Minneapolis, on Tuesday, May 12, 1976, and its stated purpose was to assist the Archbishop in gaining a stronger foothold for the Society of St. Pius X in the States during the unprecedented crisis Blessed Pope Paul had helped unleash on the Church.
On that occasion Archbishop Lefebvre delivered an address on the desperate state of the Church at that time—42 years ago—that was never transcribed or published until we did so for the December 15, 2017 print edition of The Remnant.
I’m posting the address here because I'm convinced the Archbishop’s words provide recent recruits to Tradition with vital historical context for the diabolical debacle that is the pontificate of Pope Francis. And for those of us who’ve been in the trenches for a long, long time it also provides welcome reminder of why we must continue to fight.
Even though I personally was in attendance back in 1976 when Archbishop Lefebvre delivered this address in Minneapolis, I was only ten years old and of course didn't realize how prophetic he was on that occasion, or how devastated by the Second Vatican Council, the New Mass, and the Freemasonic infiltration of the Vatican. In fact, this transcript reads like a message of encouragement at a crucial moment in the history of this movement—Stay in the fight! Keep the Faith. Never surrender!
This address also makes it absolutely clear that everything Archbishop Lefebvre did was part of an eleventh-hour defence of the Kingship of Christ (ignored completely by the Second Vatican Council) and a desperate last stand for Tradition, the infallible teachings of Mother Church and of course her ancient liturgy. And now that Pope Francis has inadvertently unmasked the true spirit of Vatican II, it becomes obvious how and why those who resisted that spirit were right to have done so and will certainly be hailed by history as the heroic band of Catholic brothers that mounted the twentieth century’s last stand for Christ the King and, while scorned and mocked at the time, were nevertheless totally vindicated fifty years later. May we continue to earn the right to stand with them today. MJM
The Archbishop Speaks
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As I said to Mr. [Walter] Matt, I can say in bad English what he says in good English, because he said all of the things I want to say [Referring here to Walter Matt’s introductory talk referenced above.] And I thank you, Mr. Matt, very much, for his invitation, and I thank you for your coming, and I thank Fr. Ward for what he said about the Society of St. Pius X. And I hope that you can understand my poor English, but I think it is better to speak some bad English because to translate would take too much time.
As Mr. Matt said, the crisis in the Church is very extraordinary. It is very difficult to understand the situation today. My seminary in Écône (in Switzerland) and the seminaries in Germany and here in America, in Armada, are in very difficult situations with Rome. Why? These seminaries are the same as seminaries were before the Second Vatican Council. They have the same discipline and the same studies, they make good priests; I think they are good seminarians. All is done as all the seminaries before the Second Vatican Council. Why are we now in this very sad situation with Rome?
I think that because in the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, there is a mutation, a change, in the Church. But we do not change. We continue the Tradition. So why do they now say, as Mgr. (Archbishop) Benelli[1] said to me months ago on the 19th of March, “you are out of communion with the Church.” I am out of communion with the Church because I continue the Tradition of the Church? This is possible? I do not understand. Why? I have done nothing. I believe nothing other than what the Church has believed for twenty centuries.
Mgr. Benelli then said to me, you must put down in a writing to the Holy Father that you accept the Second Vatican Council, you accept the reform that followed the Council, and that you accept the orientations that have been given by Rome. Mgr. Benelli took the book of the New Ordo, gave it to me, and said, “You must say this New Mass in all of your houses.”
I wonder why Mgr. Benelli did not communicate this condition to me before our meeting.[2] He could have done so. For example, one year ago three cardinals sent me a letter (Cardinals Wright, Tabera [Arturo Carinal Tabera Araoz, one of the Council Fathers MJM], and Gabriel-Marie Garrone) telling me (in effect) that I must close the seminaries. Well, I refused, because I refuse to contribute to the destruction of the Church. Because now they are destroying the Church. When I die and go before the judge, God will not be able to say to me, “You destroyed the Church.” I refused to contribute to the destruction of the Church. I am sure that my seminaries are contributing to the restoration of the Church. I do not destroy the Church. And so I said to Mgr. Benelli, “No, I will not sign that writing.”
I think that the mutation in the Church came in through the Second Vatican Council. And do you think this change in the Church came suddenly? When, then? At the beginning of the Council? No, this change in the Church began one century before [the Council]. Pope Pius VI said during the French Revolution that if the Church continues to remain under the influence of the prince of the revolution, then, in the future a crisis will come upon the Church.
In [1844], Pope Pius IX ordered Cardinal Rigoli to publish the Instructions of the Carbonari.[3] The Pope himself asked Cardinal Rigoli to publish the Instructions of the Carbonari. And what did these Instructions say? The Instructions said that they [the Carbonari/Freemasons] must begin to fight against the Church by bringing reform into the Church. The Instructions said the infiltration will take perhaps not one year, perhaps not ten years, but perhaps a century. The Carbonari must enter into the seminary, into the convent, into the sacristy, and slowly, very slowly, the priests will have the ideals of the revolution; of the Freemasons. One day these priests, imbued with Masonic principles, will become bishops, and these bishops can then choose a pope. And even if the pope is not a Freemason, he will have the same ideals as the Freemasons. Pope Pius IX called for the publishing of these Instructions in order to warn the bishops and priests of those times of the fight against the church.
In 1895, the Catholic Antonia Fogazzaro, a known modernist, founded a masonic lodge in Milan. He wrote in his book, Il Santo, that “We [modernists]…want a reform in the Church…without rebellion, carried out by legitimate authority…even if this takes 20, 30, or 50 years.”[4] “The reform will have to be brought about in the name of obedience.” The modernist ideas in the Church introduced and enacted through obedience! And I think…well, here we are! In this time! The reform is here, and it is brought about through obedience, to the Council, to the bishop, to the priest. And all they say is “Obedience, obedience, obedience.”
The Instructions of the Carbonari say the bishop and the priest will think that they are following the tiara of the Pope, but they will be following the flag of Freemasonry [“the banner of revolution”]. They said that. They wrote that! One century before [the Council]! Thus, it is very important to know that they prepared for the beginning of the Second Vatican Council for a century, perhaps two centuries!
As the Archbishop of Dakar and President of the Episcopal Commission for French-speaking West Africa, I was appointed member of the Central Preparatory Commission of the Second Vatican Council. There were some seventy cardinals, twenty bishops, and four super-authorities of the religious orders, among others. Before the last meeting of this Commission the members received two schemas on the same subject: one from Cardinal Ottaviani and another from Cardinal Bea.
The schema from Cardinal Ottaviani was titled “On Religious Tolerance” and the other, from Cardinal Bea, was titled “On Religious Freedom [Liberty].” When we read these two schemas, we thought, “This is impossible. How is it we can receive two opposing theses? One says we must not tolerate error. The other says that error has the right to exist in the name of the dignity of the human person.” And so, we go into the meeting. Cardinal Ottaviani, standing, says to Cardinal Bea, “You have no authority to compose this schema, because it is a theological thesis and therefore within the competence of the Theological Commission.” As Cardinal Bea stands up, he says, “I do have the right to compose this schema because if anything concerns Christian Unity it is religious liberty, and I am the President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.” Cardinal Bea, addressing Cardinal Ottaviani, further said, “I am opposed to your schema.”
Impossible! We were in a very sad, serious situation. Cardinal Ruffini had to intervene as we were in front of two cardinals, our brothers. He said we must wait for the authority to say who is right and who is wrong. But before the Pope came (because the Pope came many times to present at these meetings) we voted on the schema. Who is with Cardinal Ottaviani? Who is with Cardinal Bea? The conservatives and the liberals. As the last meeting of the Preparatory Commission, it was for me the first image of the future Council.
And as we go into the Council, you know that on the first day of the Council, Cardinal Lienart was the chief of the liberal cardinals in the Council, [together] with all of the Cardinals of the Rhine (such as Cardinal Alfrink, Cardinal Frings, Cardinal Dopfner, Cardinal Suenens, Cardinal Leinart, and Cardinal Koenig of Austria). And now one month ago in Rome, the traditional periodical Chiesa Viva published a photo of Cardinal Lienart with all of the appurtenances of Freemasonry, the date of his inscription in Masonry, the date [of his rising to] the 20th Degree of Freemasonry, the date [of his rising to] the 30th Degree of Freemasonry, and the places where he [attended] the meetings of Freemasonry. This Cardinal was the chief of the liberals in the Council. That is my cardinal; he ordained me to the priesthood, and he consecrated me a bishop. And now this is public. Nobody has been able to refute the publication. And so, we have (I am confident) a mutation in the church by the Council and by the reform after the Council.
Now, some say the Council is (was) good, but only the reforms were bad. That is not true. Why? Because when the reforms come, Rome always says the reforms are being done in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all of the reforms came from the Council. And if the reforms are bad, then it is impossible that the Council is good and all the reforms are bad, because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome. Rome said in the name of the Declaration of Liturgy, we [implement] the liturgical reform. We can say that [these bad changes are] not in the text of the Declaration, but this man has the authority to say that this is from the Council. They know that. And I am sure that it [the mutation] is in the Council. Even if it is not explicitly [stated] in the Council but [rather] in the spirit of the Council, it is the same!
For example, with religious freedom: now the Holy See and all the Nuncios are against the Catholic State in the name of the Council - in the name of the Declaration of Religious Freedom. I have heard this (personally) twice. The first time I was in Columbia.
When I was in Columbia, I read in the paper about the change in the first article of the Constitution of the Republic of Columbia. [The first article] stated that only the Republic of Columbia recognizes only the Catholic religion. They changed it. They removed this article. I read the discourse of the President of Columbia with the Nuncios of Columbia and the Secretary of the Episcopal Conference in Columbia. The President said he is very, very anxious. He said to the people, “even though we remove this article we remain Catholic. I am a Catholic, I shall remain Catholic, and I do everything possible for the Council and the Catholics in our country.”
Then, the discourse of the Nuncio was the discourse of a Freemason: all of it was “progress,” “humanity,” “evolution,” and all the hubris of a Freemason. And during the discourse of the Secretary of the Episcopal Conference, [the Secretary] said, “in the name of the Declaration of Religious Freedom [of Vatican II], we ask the President to remove this article in the Constitution.”
I met this Secretary of the Episcopal Conference during my visit in Columbia, and he said for two years they [had been asking] the President, in the name of the Holy See, to change this article in their Constitution. But I will never…I do not accept the concept, because you destroy the Catholic State in the name of the Council. Are you sure? Yes, sure. It is evident.
Now I said to the [Secretary], “As I speak with you now about Columbia, I know that you are the one responsible for the change in the constitution of Valais in Switzerland one year ago. The change in the Constitution of Valais was the same.” (Because you know Switzerland is a Federation where some states are Protestant and some states are Catholic. The Valais is Catholic. And in its constitution, the words of the first article [of the constitution] of the State of Valais – Écône, where we are located, is in the State of Valais - only one religion is recognized: The Catholic Church.) And [the Secretary] said, “Yes, I am responsible for this change.” Brother, what did you do with the Social Kingship of Christ? What is this for you? What do you say when you say “thy kingdom come” in your prayer, the Our Father? “Ah,” the Nuncio said to me, “Now it is impossible.” What did you do with the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas? “Ah, but now the Pope cannot write an encyclical like Quas Primas.”
It is incredible. And all in the name of the Council.
We must take care, because this change in the church is a liberal change. The liberal principles have entered the Church now, and they destroy the Church. If we cannot set out the true principles of the Church, if we in the name of religious freedom said that all religions have the same right in every state in the world…
[missing audio...]
The truth is the only one King of the World is Jesus Christ. We say in the Gloria in Excelsis Deo, “Tu solus Altissimus,” “Tu solus Dominus,” “You alone are the Highest,” “You alone are the Lord.” But practically, we would refuse this Kingdom of Jesus Christ if we said that Luther, Mohammed, Buddha and Jesus Christ are all the same. We cannot say that. Impossible. We know that in many states (it is a pity) it is impossible [to recognize Catholicism as the state religion]. We must tolerate - have tolerance for the error - but never give the same right to error and truth. That is impossible.
And the change in the liturgy is very important. It is very bad. One of the principles of modern man, as they say now, “modern man,” is democracy. And democracy can have a good sense but not if [by that term is meant] that those who govern receive their authority from the people. The authority comes from God. Not from the people. Not from the masses. From God. But today the principle, the democratic principle, is that the authority is in the people. It is in the masses. That is not true. It is impossible. And our liturgy is the school of our Faith. It is the first school of our Faith for all people.
I was in Africa as a missionary and as bishop for 30 years. I know the liturgy was the best school of the Faith for people who cannot read. They can see what the priest does. They can see what the priest does at the adoration of the Body and the Blood of Jesus Christ. And they know that Jesus Christ is present - His real presence is on the altar - by the attitude of the priest. They know that. That is very important.
But the change in the Mass destroys the Church. Because we know the liturgy teaches us hierarchy. The true liturgy is hierarchical. It is not democratic but hierarchical. Why? Because we have God, the priest, and then the people. That is hierarchy. When we are in Church we know God is on the altar; the priest is between God and the people; and the people receive God at the hand of the priest. That is hierarchy.
But now the new liturgy is more democratic - all around the table. The priest is only the president, and sometimes another man can take the role of the president of the meal. That is a new liturgy. That is very bad, because we have no sense of the hierarchical; whereas the sense of hierarchy is very important in our life. We need the authority of God. We need the Real Presence of God on our altar. We need the Sacrifice of the Mass – not a meal only – but the Sacrifice. So, the Victim of the Sacrifice is really present on our altar. That is the school of our Faith.
And slowly, slowly, this new Mass equivocates. It moves the minds of the faithful in a Protestant [direction]. I do not say that all [Novus Ordo] Masses are invalid. I do not say that. But perhaps, more and more, they become invalid because [the ministers lose faith in the Real Presence].
Recently, in France, a progressive paper conducted a statistical survey to see how many priests no longer have faith in the Real Presence. They found that twenty-two percent no longer have the faith, the belief in the Real Presence. But I think that if they directed this question to all of the priests who are under 50 years of age, they would find that fifty percent [have lost the faith in the Real Presence], because the young priests have no faith. No faith.
Last year, Bishop Adam (in our Diocese of Sion, Switzerland) ordained one priest for my Congregation of the Holy Ghost Fathers. This one priest came from France. His uncle had died in a road accident when his cab fell in the river. The uncle had nine children. The Bishop said to the new priest, “Now you can say Mass for your uncle. Now you are a priest, and you can say Mass for your uncle.” The new priest said, “No, never.” Why? It is not useful to say Mass for the dead? “No, no, it is impossible. They are already in heaven.” This young priest who was ordained by the Bishop last year for my Congregation is now a professor in the minor seminary in Switzerland. They are not learning theology, not philosophy, not anything. They learn nothing now.
Another example. Recently, I had two young [potential] seminarians come to my house near Paris. One of them works in a factory, and the other is a university student. They told me they were [considering] the seminary of Paris. I asked them, “Why do you come to see me?” They told me that they had a meeting in the house of the Oblate of Maria with the priest who oversees young men who may have vocations to the priesthood in the Diocese of Paris. There was a total of fifteen young men for all of the Diocese of Paris. During the meeting, the priest, before he celebrated the Eucharist, said, “Today we celebrate the Eucharist, but we do not believe in the Real Presence.” These two young men said “That is impossible. We cannot remain in this seminary.” So, they came to meet me. They said that Écône is the only seminary where they seem to be able to find the True Faith. They asked for admittance to Écône. And I think that they shall be coming to Écône next October. But that is a new religion. It is a Protestant religion. That is a fact.
Perhaps you can say, “How is it possible that the pope gives the authorization to this change? How is it possible the pope signed this decree? Signed this constitution?” I don’t know. I don’t know. It is a big mystery. A big mystery. There are many proposed theological answers. I cannot subscribe to all of them. Some say the pope is not responsible. Perhaps someone gave the pope an injection, a drug, and he is not responsible. Perhaps, I don’t know. Some say there are two popes [(a body double)]. I don’t know. Some say the pope was liberal before he was elected pope, and perhaps (we do not know) he gave his name to Freemasonry (thereby incurring excommunication before the conclave). We do not know. We do know now that Bugnini was primarily responsible for the change in liturgy, and that he is an infamous Freemason. And because he had an indiscretion with his Masonic appurtenances, the Pope sent him as a Nuncio in Iran.
I don’t know. We don’t know. Now, you cannot say that Archbishop Lefebvre said the pope gave his name to Freemasonry. No, you cannot say that. It is possible, but we do not know. But if he was excommunicated, then he is not pope. Not pope. Illegitimate. I don’t know. It is a mystery I cannot understand. But the fact is that the Catholic Church is being destroyed, and now even the pope himself says that. This pope has referred to the auto-demolition of the Church. He said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church.” But where are the men responsible for the destruction of the Church? Well, there they are. They are the men who destroy the Church. We must show where they are. Where is this smoke of Satan that has entered the Church? I do not know, but it is the pope himself who said that.
And I have these experiences every day. I visit many countries. I was in Spain during the Christmas Holy Days. Then I was in Bonn, near Cologne, Germany, three weeks ago, to speak at a conference. Many people came. Many people are confused. What is happening in the Church? They are anxious. But many people say that we disobey. Disobey? Obedience is relative. It is not absolute. It is relative to the good, but not to the evil. We cannot obey our parents if they command a bad thing. We cannot obey. It is clear.
And I know that in Spain, for example, the situation in the Church is very bad. The new nominees of bishops and many auxiliary bishops are, approximately, communist, Marxist, and socialist. And so, a majority of the bishops in the Episcopal Conference of Spain are progressives. They are modernists. Whereas, the majority of the bishops [from Spain] during the Council were conservative. So, Rome is responsible [for the situation of the Church in Spain] because it is Rome who approves the nominations for bishops.
And we know in France, in Germany, and in Europe generally, that all of the young bishops are worse [than the bishops in Spain] in that they are more or less Marxist. That is a fact. That is impossible. How can they do that? I do not know. I do not know. I have not spent my whole life in Rome. I do know Rome very well, because I was an apostolic delegate, and I was in the Secretariate of the Secretary of State. And I know that very well. But I think that the devil is in Rome, as was said by our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of La Salette.
We must pray. We must ask God to put an end to this crisis of the Church. Because if this crisis continues, many people will go to hell. They lose the faith. They cannot go into the church. They abandon the faith. You know that many priests have abandoned the faith. Many priests have gotten married. And many sisters have abandoned their congregations. It is a pity. And it is everywhere.
I was in Melbourne, Australia, during the 40th International Eucharistic Congress. Cardinal Knox, who was the man responsible for the Eucharistic Congress, is now the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. I read in the newspaper about a Mass Cardinal Knox celebrated during the Eucharistic Congress where sensual dancing was performed at the same time the words of the Consecration were pronounced. That is a sacrilege. You cannot go to that Mass. That is sacrilege. This is a fact. They also called me by phone in Melbourne to say I was on the list of the bishops [attending] the Eucharistic Congress. They asked me to concelebrate Mass with a Protestant pastor and a rabbi. Ay. Impossible. Impossible. No, no, no, no. [applause]
This change is not accidental. It is not superficial. It is very deep. Very bad. It is against our faith. Against our faith. And so, we cannot accept this Council and this reform and this orientation even though it comes from Rome. From Rome we expect only the good. We do not expect the bad, the ill. We do not expect the abandonment of adoration in the Mass. We need this adoration. We need to have the faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Because all [of this change] is [oriented] against the divinity of Jesus Christ, against the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, against the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Mass. It is a sin when we abandon the truth of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and we abandon the Faith of the divinity of Jesus Christ.
He is King because he is God. He is the Son of God. So, He is King by His nature. This is essential. Essential! And if He is God, we must give Him the adoration of God. And so, we cannot accept the diminution of this Truth. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Jesus Christ is God. That is a fundamental truth of our Faith. And it all depends on this Truth. And we know now that the theologians and the bishops have . They do not express this truth clearly and perfectly. They are afraid of the truth. That is very bad.
And it is the same in Rome. I think they refuse [to grant me an audience with] the pope, [because they are afraid of the Truth]. When I was in Rome one month ago, Mgr. Benelli told me he visits the pope every day. He said that when he left me, he would go immediately to the pope to express the importance of the work we had conducted during our meeting. Immediately, he said, he would be going. So, why do they not grant me the possibility of visiting the pope? Because they are afraid.
Cardinal Villot said, “We are afraid if Msgr. Lefebvre meets and speaks with the pope that perhaps the pope will change his mind.” Because [the pope] is not too sure; the pope is not man of true conviction. He is a mysterious man. We cannot give a definition of the man. He expresses the truth, and then he does the contrary/opposite. Some part of him will speak the truth. Another part of him is open to error. Very curious. And they are afraid that if I reveal the truth [and tell the Pope] “you must affirm the Kingdom of Jesus Christ everywhere and always each day. You must affirm the Real Presence in the Mass - in the Sacrifice of the Mass,” then perhaps it is possible that the Pope will change his mind.
And so, Cardinal Villot says, there is a confusion, and they do not want me to visit the pope. It is impossible to admit me. And I know the pope very well! When I was the apostolic delegate to Pius XII, I was going to Rome every year. And during those eleven years, I met Msgr. Montini. I know him very well. He received me twice during the Council, for a private audience with the pope. But, now, with my position against the Council and the reforms, he says: “No, impossible! You must sign in writing that you [accept] the Council and all the reforms before I will receive you in audience.” But I cannot do that. For me, if I do that, then I betray my mother, the Church. The Church!
So, I thank you very much for your encouragement, and I must say that we have a very good generation of young men and good vocations. For the coming year we have 59 applications to our seminary in Écône, Switzerland – applications from the United States, from England, from Germany, from France, and Spain. Good young men with good dispositions are coming from everywhere. And why? Why do they come to this seminary when they know we are in difficulties with Rome? They know that. But still they come. I ask them, why do you come to Écône? You know our situation. They say, “Yes, we know your situation, but we want to become true priests and not protestant pastors or modernist priests. We are coming to your seminary because we know that the end of the priest is to offer the true Sacrifice of the Mass. And so, we are Coming to Écône.”
And as I have visited my seminary here in Armada for the past five days, I can see it is the same here. We have very good young men. I also have some Americans in my seminary in Écône. In six weeks I will ordain one American priest from Detroit, who is a very good seminarian and will be a good priest. But these young men refuse to become protestants. They refuse to become modernist. They ask to become true priests. And it is a pity there are not 100 bishops opening good seminaries.
So, I ask you to pray for these seminarians because when they become priests they will have many worries and many difficulties. I think, however, they are very well prepared to deal with these difficulties and worries. And we have confidence in God. Since I began this work six years ago, now, I have evidence that God is assisting us. Because it is impossible, I realize, to do this by myself. We now have houses in Switzerland (3), Munich, France (6), Brussels (1), England, Armada, San Francisco, and New York. In Albano, near Rome, we have a congregation of sisters where I have five vocations from the states (good sisters). And I am building a seminary in Switzerland. It is impossible to do all this without God’s assistance.
So, I have confidence. It is impossible for the Church to change its tradition. The tradition of twenty centuries. That we cannot change. The Church is tradition. The Church is tradition. It is not revolution. I thank you for your attention.
NOTES:
[1] Archbishop Benelli, who had the title of “Substitute” (meaning the Assistant to the Secretary of State) of the Vatican Secretariat of State, later created Cardinal and appointed Archbishop of Florence in 1977.
[2] Until the date of this meeting, March 19, 1976, nothing had been said to Archbishop Lefebvre about this condition of submission, which submission was demanded of him as a condition to his request for a Papal Audience. Many noted that, at the time, it was only of Archbishop Lefebvre that these conditions were demanded. Paul VI received all kinds of people (abortionists, freemasons, etc.).
[3] Otherwise known as the “Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita,” a secret document written in the early 19th Century that mapped out a blueprint for the subversion of the Catholic Church. The Alta Vendita was the highest lodge of the Carbonari, an Italian secret society with links to Freemasonry and which, along with Freemasonry, was condemned by the Popes.
[4] During the pontificate of St. Pius X, a lay politician and author Antonio Fogazzaro, advocated a path to reform the Church and Papacy in his novel Il Santo, published in 1907. Fogazzaro was a known Modernist whose works were banned by the Church and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
Source: remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3719-for-the-first-time-online-archbishop-lefebvre-s-prophetic-address-to-the-remnant-1976
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1978 Ordination Sermon |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 07:00 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
1978 Ordination Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre
Given at Econe, Switzerland on June 29, 1978.
My dear friends, my dear brothers:
Let us thank God who has blessed us with such a beautiful day. Let us thank Him for all the graces that He gives us and, in particular today, for having granted us the grace to be able to ordain eighteen priests and twenty-two subdeacons. Let us thank God, each one of us, that He has preserved us in the Catholic Faith. Let us thank God…let us thank Him that we have remained faithful to the Church, faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, faithful to all those in the Church who protect the Faith.
What joy to see all of you gathered here today, my dear brothers, coming – we can say – from the four corners of the world, from Australia to the borders of California, from Canada to Buenos Aires, and, yesterday, I received a letter from the Catholics in South Africa who said they would be united with us on this day-and from all points in Europe. Let us thank God to be gathered together here solely because we are Catholics, because we are members of the Church and because we want to continue what Our Lord has instituted, and what Our Lord wanted us to believe. I would like, for a few moments, to speak on what precisely the priesthood is.
Why a priest? one asks oneself today. We think it suffices for us to open the Gospels to know what a priest is. It suffices for us to know what Our Lord Jesus Christ is, Who is the High Priest, Who is the Priest par excellence, in order to know what priests are today. Our Lord tells us in words so short and so simple, "Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos – As the Father has sent Me, so I also send you." And, if we only reflect a few moments on the first part of Our Lord's words, "Sicut misit me Pater…” but, is this mission of Our Lord not His eternal mission? In the Blessed Trinity the Son is always sent by the Father because He comes from the Father, because He is born of the Father. In eternity Our Lord is always sent by the Father and this is why He is the Word of God. Just as the Holy Ghost is sent by the Father and the Son; and this is why He is the Holy Ghost. Well, this eternal mission of Our Lord Jesus Christ is continued in His temporal mission. And we need to remind ourselves that the mission that Our Lord has accomplished here below is the mission for which the world was created!
We were all created and put down here on this earth, and all of the world which surrounds us, the splendors which Almighty God has made in nature, all these things – the stars and all creation, spiritual creatures, the angels of heaven, the elect of heaven – all were created for the mission of Our Lord Jesus Christ: in order that one day Our Lord might sum up in Himself all of creation and be made man. And that making Himself man, He would sing God's glory, that all creation might sing God's glory, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, in Our Lord Jesus Christ. There is the reason for the world's existence. There is the reason for our existence. There is the mission of Our Lord – to sing His Father's glory – in His body and in His human soul and thus summing up by His divinity all that there could ever be of the most beautiful, of the greatest and of the most sublime things here below – the song of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
And at what moment? At the most sublime moment of His life, of His existence here below, Our Lord expressed this glory, this charity that He had for His Father. This infinite charity. He was His Son, His own Son.
When did He express it? He said it Himself. He expressed it during His sublime hour: on the Cross. It was at the moment when Our Lord exhaled His last breath that He manifested the greatest glory to His Father. "It is consummated," He said…all is consummated. Indeed, all is consummated – the entire reason for the existence of creation, all of our reason for being, all of the reason for heaven's existence and that of the elect, is consummated in Our Lord Jesus Christ's death. When He said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit," and He exhaled His last sigh. This was the greatest act of charity that could exist. None of our acts of charity are anything compared to Our Lord’s.
God the Father found His glory in this Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ and in His last sigh, in His death. By His death, life came again into the world, the way of heaven was opened, the way of salvation was opened for all of us. And there is the way, my dear friends, in which we are invited to walk. "Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos." I am sending you. I am sending you to continue My mission. I am sending you to continue My mission which is none other than the one which I am doing Myself, which I have begun. And because He concluded in an act of infinite love on Calvary, on the Cross: there is the way you must follow. You must go up to the altar, offer the sacrifice of Our Lord. Continue to offer this act of infinite love that God offered to His Father. This is what you are going to do. You are going to unite yourselves to this. What grace! What grace! Are you worthy? Are we worthy to be priests? Are we worthy to go up to the altar? Indeed, if we consider ourselves – NO! We can’t lay claim to such sublimity, to such glory, to such a participation in Christ Who is the Priest – the Priest for Eternity – Who is the High Priest. But by God’s Grace, by the grace that you are going to receive in a few moments, my dear friends, yes, you will be worthy, worthy before God, before the angels, to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
And so this is the power that the bishop is going to give you in a few moments. This is the mission of Our Lord which is carried on and which must continue until the end of time.
Thus, the Church is Missionary. It could not be other than missionary. A church that would no longer be missionary, that would no longer be sent, would no longer correspond to the Most Holy Trinity – would no longer correspond to what the Most Holy Trinity is – would no longer correspond to what Our Lord Jesus Christ is Himself, Who is the One sent by God. You are apostles; you are essentially sent to accomplish the mission that Our Lord Jesus Christ accomplished here below, to carry it on. "Hoc facite in meam commemorationem …remittite peccatis eis…accipite Spiritum Sanctum…quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis: et quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt…euntes…baptizate eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."
This is what Our Lord Jesus Christ told us: This is what we must do in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. What a noble mission, my dear friends!
How the faithful people must await this of you! They are waiting for the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ to be brought down into their souls in order that they also might unite themselves to Our Lord Jesus Christ in His Cross and to His love in this infinite charity. This, my dear friends, is what the Church is. It is great because it unites us to Our Lord Jesus Christ. Without Our Lord Jesus Christ we are nothing. With Our Lord Jesus Christ we can do all things. My dear friends, let us unite our lives to Our Lord.
But, He also told us, "Ego mitto vos sicut oves inter lupos – I am sending you forth as lambs amongst the wolves.” Yes, we are all – faithful Christians, priests, future priests, seminarians – we are all sent by Our Lord Jesus Christ, as it were, into the midst of wolves. These wolves… Our Lord has pointed them out. He indicated them to be mercenaries for whom the sheep do not count. They are not interested in the sheep and they abandon the sheep for the least reason.
And so, unhappily, we are obliged to state that today there are wolves-not only outside the Church, but there are mercenaries inside the Church. We are obliged to state this. And precisely what I would like – that on which I would like to insist – is that if the Catholic church is Missionary, it is not Ecumenical! The Catholic Church is not ecumenical! Now, today, the Church is besieged by these mercenaries, these wolves who wish to lead us astray. The enemy is in the Church. Already, St. Pius X told us this.
Well, this enemy wants to leads us on to the way of perdition. By what path? By the way of ecumenism! And these enemies are not hidden. And what is ecumenism, if not the betrayal of truth? A betrayal of Our Lord Jesus Christ. A truth that is adulterated…that is mixed with error. The law of Our Lord Jesus Christ is no longer upheld: the Ten Commandments. The moral teaching that Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us is no longer upheld on the pretext of being on good terms with modem man…with the men of this world. This is why we have been given an ecumenical Mass; we have been given an ecumenical catechism; we have been given an ecumenical Bible. And it is desired that henceforth nations should be ecumenical societies. That is, societies that compromise with error, that compromise with evil – with vice. And thus, states that are not Catholic!
We must not accept these things which contain poison and we are not afraid to say this ecumenism comes straight from the secret dens of iniquity of masonry. And also, St. Pius X says: read the letter of St. Pius X of 1910 to the Bishops of France condemning the Sillon. We have lived through the Sillon, which was nothing other than a kind of ecumenism, which prepared today's ecumenism. The Great Sillon, as he called it, was precisely a veritable ecumenism. Well, our Holy Father, Pope St. Pius X, after having examined “Sillon,” and having condemned it, said, "We know well where these ideas come from: they come from secret dens of iniquity. The winds of the revolution have passed by there."
Well, we can also say that with ecumenism, the winds of revolution have passed by! This is why we absolutely refuse ecumenism! And I could show you texts that come, for example, from a high leader of Masonry, Mr. Friedsell, ex-Grandmaster of the Grand Orient of France, who recent months wrote an article, "Three points in all," in which he said formally, "The Council will take a long time to reveal its true signification. But the faithful understand that something has come to pass which is entirely contained in the word 'ecumenism'." "And this signifies," he said, "that the Church must reconcile herself with all religions and, likewise, as a consequence, with Masonry.”
There you have what this Grandmaster of Masonry said two or three months ago. And then, again more recently, in Civilta Cattolica, the major review of the Jesuits of Rome, the largest Roman review, the most important review, and which has been considered as the most serious – two Jesuit Fathers have an article on the Intégristes,1 which we are, obviously, and in which my name appeared. Well, they only reproach us with this: that we still consider socialism, communism, and Freemasonry to be enemies of the Church. This is what they reproach us for. This written by two Jesuit Fathers last February in the large Catholic, Roman review!
Well, then, we understand. We now know with whom we have to deal. We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a “diabolical hand” which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church! And this is why we have the right and the duty to refuse this obedience. For, when they convoke me back to Rome in perhaps a few months – indeed, I have just received a letter from the Vatican talking about a mutual discourse in the future, and which, at the same time, asks me not to perform these ordinations today – in order to be able to continue these mutual discourses – well, then, with whom will I be having these mutual discourses? I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals (who were indeed saintly persons and who were defenders of the Church and of the Catholic Faith) it seems to me that I would have the right to ask them, “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?" "With whom am I dealing?" If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?
My dear friends, we have been betrayed. Betrayed by all of those who ought to be giving us the truth, who ought to be teaching the Ten Commandments, who ought to be teaching us the true catechism, who ought to be giving us the true Mass – the one that the Church has always loved; the one that was said by the Saints; the one that has sanctified generations and generations!
Likewise, they must give us all the sacraments, without any doubt concerning their validity, sacraments which are certainly valid. It is a duty for us to ask them for these things and they have a duty to give them to us.
Now, I have just told you things that are found in the Gospel. Our Lord Jesus Christ's mission was to go up to the Cross. This was His mission, given to Him by the Father. It was His hour. And this is the mission that He wants to give to priests. "Hoc tacite in meam commemorationem – Do this in memory of Me." This is what we must do. Not in any of the reviews that have recently spoken about vocations is there a mention of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
What, then, is the priest's mission? They no longer know! This is what we have come to!
So, my dear brothers, whoever we may be, if we want to remain Catholic, if we want the Catholic Church to continue, we have a duty not to obey those who wish to lead us into the Church's destruction. We have the duty not to collaborate in the Church's destruction. But, on the contrary, to work – to work ardently, calmly, serenely, for the Church's construction, for the re-construction of the Church, for the preservation of the Church.
Each one of you can do your duty in this regard-in your villages, in your parishes, in your institutions, in your professions – wherever you are. Set up true parishes, Catholic parishes. And let these Catholic parishes be confided to true priests. And see how true priests are numerous. Look at them all around us today. There are many who think as they do. Try to lead them back to the truth in order that they may give you the sacraments that you desire and the Holy Mass that you desire.
Organize yourselves in order that the priests who come may become parish priests, quite simply. Let the parishes be re-established as they once were. This is a duty, a strict duty. And we congratulate wholeheartedly those in religious life who are present and the priests who are here, who are persecuted, having unbelievable, inconceivable difficulties - who are asked to abandon their religious habit. So, let sisters be firm in their faith. May they remain firm in the constitutions that were given to them by their holy founders.
And we have the joy of thinking that these religious congregations will be multiplied. We are assured that soon there will be other religious who want to preserve the traditions, the holy traditions of their congregations and of their founders.
This is what we must do. And you, my dear friends, who are soon going to take up your responsibilities in your respective assignments; well, ask the Blessed Virgin Mary, ask the Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul, who, today, ask nothing other than to give you blessings – beg them for abundant graces in order that you may realize the apostolate in preparation for which you have been here at this seminary…or at the Monastery of Bédoin, to prepare yourself for this great day of the priesthood.
My dear brothers, I conclude. We appear to be weak and we appear to be strong. We appear to be weak because, what are a few thousand people gathered here when one thinks of the entire word – of all humanity who ought to adore Our Lord Jesus Christ – who ought to throng around the altars of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to receive His Precious Body, His Blood, His Soul, His Divinity, in order to be transformed into Our Lord Jesus Christ. What sorrow to think that millions of souls are estranged from Our Lord Jesus Christ!
But at the same time that we are weak, because we are few in number in relation to the mission that Almighty God asks us to accomplish, at the same time, we are strong. We are strong with the word of Our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “I will be with you unto the consummation of the ages.” We are strong, precisely because we ourselves want to carry on the mission of Our Lord Jesus Christ – to continue the Church. And this is what makes us strong – strong in this essential bond with tradition, with all that Our Lord has taught us, with the institution of the Church and with all Our Lord has bequeathed to His Church, strong in these things, strong in being with all the elect of heaven.
Strong in being with all the Catholics of the earth who want to preserve their Catholic Faith. Strong – in this we are assured – in victory! Not that we are seeking to cry our victory against those who are ill-willed towards us – against those who persecute us. I speak of Our Lord’s victory over Satan which He won by His Cross. We are convinced that this victory will carry on, it could not do otherwise than continue because the Church must carry on and must persevere. As a consequence, if sometimes, you are overcome by feelings of discouragement, by feelings of being rent inside – nearly of despair at the sight of the Church torn and suffering, struck from all sides; if these feelings invade your soul, know that Our Lord is with you, provided that you keep the words that Our Lord gave us, that Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us.
And it is by these sacrifices that one day the enemy will be driven away from the Church and that the Church will again discover her splendor. It will no longer be undermined by persons who desire its disappearance, or who desire its destruction.
And so today we must all pray together. We must pray, in particular, that God will drive away the enemies from the Church in order that the church may again give the graces which the faithful need and which the world needs for its salvation.
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Source
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1966 Reply to Cardinal Ottaviani on Dangers to the Faith |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:56 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Angelus Online
February 1981
In I Accuse the Council [...] His Grace describes this letter as follows:
"A year after the Council, the faith of many Catholics was so unsettled that Cardinal Ottaviani asked every bishop in the world and all Superiors General of orders and congregations to reply to an enquiry on the dangers which threatened certain fundamental truths of our Faith. It seems to me to be opportune to make public the reply which I made as Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost and of the Sacred Heart of Mary."
The most notable feature of the letter is its date (20 December 1966), which shows that Archbishop Lefebvre saw clearly, only a year after Vatican II ended, the many problems resulting from the Council—problems which have since been felt by millions:
Quote:Rome, 20 December 1966
Your Eminence:
Your letter of 24 July concerning the questioning of certain truths was communicated through the good offices of our secretariat to all our major superiors.
Few replies have reached us. Those which have come to us from Africa do not deny that there is great confusion of mind at the present time. Even if these truths do not appear to be called in question, we are witnessing in practice a diminution of fervour and of regularity in receiving the sacraments, above all of the Sacrament of Penance. A greatly diminished respect for the Holy Eucharist is found, above all on the part of priests, and a scarcity of priestly vocations in French-speaking missions: vocations in the English- and Portuguese-speaking missions are less affected by the new spirit, but already the magazines and newspapers are spreading the most advanced theories.
It would seem that the reason for the small number of replies received is due to the difficulty of grasping these errors which are diffused everywhere; the seat of the evil lies chiefly in a literature which sows confusion in the mind by descriptions which are ambiguous and equivocal, but under the cloak of which one discovers a new religion.
I believe it is my duty to put before you fully and clearly what is evident from my conversations with numerous bishops, priests and laymen in Europe and in Africa and which emerges also from what I have read in English and French territories.
I would willingly follow the order of the truths listed in your letter, but I venture to say that the present evil appears to me to be much more serious than the denial or calling in question of some truth of our faith. In these times it shows itself in an extreme confusion of ideas, in the breaking up of the Church's institutions, religious institutions, seminaries, Catholic schools—in short, of what has been the permanent support of the Church, but it is nothing less than the logical continuation of the heresies and errors which have been undermining the Church in recent centuries especially since the Liberalism of the last century which has striven at all costs to reconcile the Church with the ideas that led to the French Revolution.
In the measure in which the Church has opposed these ideas, which run counter to sound philosophy and theology, she has made progress; on the other hand, any compromise with these subversive ideas has brought about an alignment of the Church with civil law with the attendant danger of enslaving her to civil society.
Moreover, every time that groups of Catholics have allowed themselves to be attracted by these myths, the Popes have courageously called them to order, enlightening, and if necessary condemning them. Catholic Liberalism was condemned by Pius IX, Modernism by Leo XIII, the Sillon movement by Saint Pius X, Communism by Pius XI, and Neo-Modernism by Pius XII.
Thanks to this admirable vigilance, the Church grew firm and spread: conversions of pagans and Protestants were very numerous; heresy was completely routed, States accepted a more Catholic legislation.
Groups of religious imbued with these false ideas, however, succeeded in infiltrating them into Catholic Action and into the seminaries, thanks to a certain indulgence on the part of the bishops and the tolerance of certain Roman authorities. Soon it would be among such priests that the bishops would be chosen.
This was the point at which the Council found itself while preparing, by preliminary commissions, to proclaim the truth in the face of such errors in order to banish them from the midst of the Church for a long time to come. This would have been the end of Protestantism and the beginning of a new and fruitful era for the Church.
Now this preparation was odiously rejected in order to make way for the gravest tragedy the Church has ever suffered. We have lived to see the marriage of the Catholic Church with Liberal ideas. It would be to deny the evidence, to be willfully blind, not to state courageously that the Council has allowed those who profess the errors and tendencies condemned by the Popes named above, legitimately to believe that their doctrines were approved and sanctioned.
Whereas the Council was preparing itself to be a shining light in today's world, if those pre-conciliar documents in which we find a solemn profession of safe doctrine in regard to modern problems had been used, we can and we must unfortunately state that:
In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.
The transmission of the jurisdiction of the bishops, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last ends, etc.—on all these fundamental points the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous texts of the Council on these truths will henceforward permit doubt to be cast upon them. The consequences of this have rapidly been drawn and applied in the life of the Church:
• Doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations.
• Doubts on the necessity for and nature of the "conversion" of every soul involve the disappearance of religious vocations, the destruction of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the uselessness of the missions.
• Doubts on the lawfulness of authority and the need for obedience, caused by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience and liberty, are unsettling all societies beginning with the Church—religious societies, dioceses, secular society, the family.
Pride has as its normal consequence all the concupiscences of the eye and the flesh. It is perhaps one of the most appalling signs of our age to see to what moral decadence the majority of Catholic publications have fallen. They speak without any restraint of sexuality, of birth control by every method, of the lawfulness of divorce, of mixed education, of flirtation, of dances as a necessary means of Christiant upbringing, of the celibacy of the clergy, etc.
• Doubts on the necessity of grace in order to be saved cause baptism to be held in low esteem so that for the future it is to be put off until later, and occasion the neglect of the Sacrament of Penance. Moreover, this is particularly an attitude of the clergy and not of the faithful. It is the same with regard to the Real Presence: it is the clergy who act as though they no longer believe by hiding away the Blessed Sacrament, by suppressing all marks of respect towards the Sacred Species and all ceremonies in Its honor.
• Doubts on the necessity of the Church, the sole source of salvation, on the Catholic Church as the only true religion, emanating from the declarations on ecumenism and religious liberty, are destroying the authority of the Church's Magisterium. In fact Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis.
Thus, driven to this by the facts, we are forced to conclude that the Council has encouraged in an inconceivable manner the spreading of Liberal errors. Faith, morals and ecclesiastical discipline are shaken to their foundations, fulfilling the predictions of all the Popes.
The destruction of the Church is advancing at a rapid pace. By giving an exaggerated authority to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself powerless. What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter, and he alone, can save the Church.
Let the Holy Father surround himself with strong defenders of the Faith: let him nominate them in the important dioceses. Let him by documents of outstanding importance proclaim the truth, search out error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of calling in question the pastoral dispositions of the Council.
Let the Holy Father deign: to encourage the bishops to correct faith and morals, each individually in his respective diocese as it behooves every good pastor; to uphold the courageous bishops, to urge them to reform their seminaries and return to them the study of St. Thomas; to encourage Superiors General to maintain in novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of all Christian asceticism, and above all, obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a press informed by sound doctrine, associations of Catholic families; and finally, to rebuke the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. The Wednesday allocutions cannot replace encyclicals, decrees, and letters to the bishops.
Doubtless I am reckless 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, love of Mary, of the Church, of the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ.
May the Holy Ghost, to Whom our Congregation is dedicated, deign to come to the assistance of the Pastor of the Universal Church.
May Your Eminence deign to accept the assurance of my most respectful devotion in Our Lord.
+ Marcel Lefebvre,
Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia,
Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1972 Conference - That the Church May Endure |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:52 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
THAT THE CHURCH MAY ENDURE
Rennes, France
November 1972
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I should rather say My dear Brethren, since I rejoice to see several cassocks among the audience. I have not the eloquence of a Bossuet, I have not the knowledge of a St. Thomas, so you must forgive me. I am only a missionary, but if my words lack eloquence, I hope the conviction of my faith will be sufficiently apparent to you and that you will understand that I did not come here to make an eloquent address; above all I come here with joy, in answer to the request made of me, so that your and my faith in the Holy Catholic Church may grow, that our faith in our Lord may persevere, and that when we leave this meeting we may be more determined than ever to maintain that faith, the most precious gift that we have in our souls. For I it was indeed our priests who, one day, asked our godfathers and godmothers when they carried us to the baptismal font: “What does faith give you?” “Eternal Life.” And if there is one thing we need, one thing for which we hope, one thing we await, it is indeed eternal life. Hence we are not here concerned with words of little importance; this is not a lecture dealing with something transitory.
The question is that of life eternal, of the salvation of our souls. It concerns the salvation of the souls of those about us and entrusted to us, the souls of your children. That is why I have answered your call. I should not have come had the question been of small importance. I have come because it concerns serious and important matters, essential to our faith and the life of our souls.
It is then for these grave and important motives that I am among you. For what is the real danger in the situation in which the Church is engaged today, in the battle which she is fighting and in which she is deeply implicated and wounded? What is it all about? It is our faith. And it seems to me that it is on that plane that all that is happening now must be considered. Simply to consider the liturgy, the difficulties of the priesthood, the attacks on the Christian family, including that of the Catholic school, is not enough. It is a question of considering all these spheres in which the Church today finds herself in some way wounded in the matter of our faith. Moreover, I believe it may be rightly stated that throughout the history of the Church it has always been through lack of faith that heresies and schisms have been born; that whole families have been cut off from the Church by forsaking the faith. Once again it is under this aspect that today’s crisis must be considered if it is to be rightly understood.
I hope my words will not scandalize you. I hope you will not think my attitude too hard and fast, and the words I shall speak too lacking in the finer shades! One thing I would say, before touching the heart of the matter, is that I have no intention of criticizing individuals. If you prefer, I will adopt the position taken by the Holy Office, the position it has always taken when bound in duty to consider the condemnation of books and to put them on the Index.
The Holy Office did not consider persons, only their works. It has been criticized for condemning books supposedly without hearing persons. To be accurate, however, it was not persons whom it condemned. It condemned on the evidence-the works. It said: “This book contains passages which are not in conformity with the traditional teaching of the Church.” One point, that is all! The author is of little importance; the poison is there. The Church detected it; she condemned. It was her duty and that is what the Church has already done. Alas! she does it less today. Hence I shall consider the events through which we are living, the things we are seeing and hearing, the things put into our hands, in that same way, without concerning myself with persons. You will tell me that I must go further back to the people who wrote these things or who gave them to us. I do not know and I do not want to know, because I am incapable of knowing the responsibility, still less the degree of guilt of those who may have written or given us a particular document. One thing is certain, however. If today we are experiencing a tragic and dramatic situation in the Church, there are causes which we must study and look into. We cannot close our eyes to a situation as grave as that through which we are living today.
If you wish, then, I will give you a brief description of such themes and phenomena as seem of major importance in this crisis, the phenomena which seem to us most serious. We will then seek their causes so that we may be forewarned and know what we must do. We shall then end with practical conclusions-what is to be done in the face of this crisis which constitutes an attack on the Church’s every sphere?
We might concentrate mainly on the present crisis of the Church regarding her teaching and magisterium. One of the first domains to come under serious attack is university teaching, since if there is one thing important to the Church, it is Catholic universities. The Church has always considered the university chairs of Theology, Canon Law, Liturgy, and Ecclesiastical Law as the organs of its authentic magisterium or at least preaching. It is now an established fact that in all, or nearly all, Catholic universities, at least those not behind the Iron Curtain, the orthodox Catholic Faith is no longer taught in its entirety. So far as I am aware, whether in free Europe, in the United States, or in South America, there is not a single Catholic university that teaches the Catholic Faith in its entirety. There are always some professors who, under the guise of theological research, allow themselves to express opinions contrary to our faith, not merely in a few secondary aspects, but against its very principles.
Here beneath my eyes, I have the text of a lecture on the Eucharist given by the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Strasbourg: “Contemporary Thought and the Expression of Eucharistic Faith.” This lecture, from the first line to the last, is heretical. There is no longer any question of the Real Presence of our Lord. The Real Presence, for the one who is Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Strasbourg, is comparable to the presence of a composer of a piece of music, who shows himself in his piece when it is played. It is thus that our Lord would be held present in the Holy Eucharist. Incredible!Unimaginable! And he speaks of what the celebration of the Eucharist will be in a few years. For him, the Novus Ordo is no longer in question; it is already outdated. The world evolves so swiftly that such things are soon relegated to times past and consequently, we must look forward to a Eucharist emanating from the group itself. In what will it consist? The Dean himself is not sure. But by meeting together, groups will create the Eucharist,will create the sense of this communion with Christ, who will, as they say, be present in the midst of them, but in no way present under the species of bread and wine. He smiles at that Eucharist which is called an “efficacious sign,” which is the definition of the Sacrament, of all sacraments. He says: “That is utterly ridiculous; such terms cannot be used today. In our day they are meaningless.” What this Dean says is grave indeed. As a result, the young students who hear these things from their professor, from the very Dean of the Faculty, young seminarians still in residence, are gradually steeped in error, marked by it; they receive a training which is no longer Catholic.
It is the same with those who are now at Fribourg and who hear from the famous Dominican, Professor Pfuertner, that premarital relations are both natural and desirable. Such was the scandal created throughout Switzerland that the laity themselves took the matter up. Imagine fathers of families learning that the Faculty professor, the professor of Ethics, was teaching such things! It was flabbergasting. So violent and so vehement was the reaction among Catholic and Christian parents that the bishops were made aware of the existence of a great danger. Now, despite the comments made to him, despite the coming of the Superior General of the Dominicans to Fribourg, despite the bishop’s journey to Rome to consider the measures to be taken in the matter of the professor, this Dominican Father is still attached to the University of Fribourg, where he continues his teaching. He has simply agreed to take three months’ leave, and he proposes to return to his Chair for the second term of the year, saying that those three months will give him the opportunity for discussion with the bishops. These are minor examples, but they show that even in such universities as Fribourg, hitherto regarded as a sound and traditional university, the doctrine of the Church will not be taught from now on.
It is the same with liturgy. Father Baumgartner, also a Dominican, has taught those of my own seminarians at Fribourg. They themselves have told me the way to compose new Canons. He said to them: “It is not very difficult to make new Canons; here are a few principles you can easily adopt on becoming priests.” Yet, so far as I know, he has never been the object of any comment or criticism. Examples could be multiplied. And when one reflects that even in the universities of Rome, including the Gregorian, there are freely put forward, in the guise of theological research, utterly incredible theories on the relations of Church and State, on divorce, etc! Assuredly, the very fact of having achieved a transformation of the Holy Office-always considered by the Church as the Tribunal of the Faith-is significant and of great consequence. Anyone soever, layman, priest, and more especially bishop, might submit to the Holy Office a book, a review, an article and ask for the ruling of the Church on its conformity to Catholic doctrine. A month or six weeks later, the Holy Office would answer, “This is right, this is wrong; a distinction should be drawn here; part is true, part false.” In short, it was thoroughly examined and judgment passed. It was the Tribunal of Faith. The Holy Office has now defined itself for the future as the “Office for Theological Research.” The difference is clear to see.
I remember asking Cardinal Browne, the former Superior General of the Dominicans: “Eminence, do you regard this change in the Holy Office as radical change or merely as superficial and accidental?”
“Oh no!” he replied. “The change is essential.”
The Holy Office, then, is no longer the Holy Office of the past. That is why we must not be surprised if there are no more condemnations, if the Tribunal for the Faith of the Church no longer acts, or carries out its functions where theologians and all who write on the Faith of the Church are concerned. We must not be surprised if errors grow everywhere widespread and that theologians, theologians in name only, find themselves free to publish errors and profess them publicly without fear of intervention. Thus the poison of heresy ends by spreading through the whole Church. The magisterium of the Church is subjected to a grave crisis.
It is a teaching which appears in our catechisms also-you certainly know something about that! You could see for yourselves the catechisms put into your children’s hands and found in Catholic schools today. I have here some copies of a particularly “with it” catechism. They are Canadian catechisms. All these catechisms, whether French, Canadian, German, or Italian, what have you, derive more or less from the mother-catechism, if we may call it so, of Holland. Now, you are well aware that the Dutch Catechism has been condemned, if not by the Holy Father directly, at least by the commission named by him and made up of cardinals. Ten points dealing with ten fundamental points of the doctrine of the Church have been condemned or their authors have been asked at least to restate them and thus change the text of the work in question; they were asked to issue a new edition of the catechism, changing the text-well, the text never has been changed. Some editions, in which these ten points were added at the end of the book, have been published, but the text has never been changed. Finally, the addition of the points disappeared. They are no longer to be found in recent editions. These same catechisms are now the source of all catechisms throughout the world.
Look at this one, for instance, where you can see “Sexuality and Daily Life.” I regret that I cannot pass it round. You would yourselves see the horrors it contains, including even illustrations aimed at giving children an obsession. I assure you it is an abomination. There is nothing but that in the book and always in large headlines. Sexuality! Open the book at any page, you will find it everywhere-sexuality lived in the faith, sexual promotion. The illustrations themselves are absolutely revolting-sexual promotion, sexual union, there is nothing else. The child who has these pictures to look at and these texts to attract his interest will end by believing that there is nothing else in life and that it is a reality that cannot be ignored. In a thousand forms sexuality invades the inner and outer universe of every man and woman as if nothing else existed. It is to give the child the desire and the obsession of sex!
It is this publication which is put into the hands of children in Canada. Christian parents, many Christian parents have protested, but, alas! there is nothing to be done. Why? It is enough to look at the last page. It shows that these catechisms have the approval of the Committee on the Catechism. “Nihil obstat, Gerard-Marie Coderre, President of the Episcopal Commission for Religious Education in Quebec.” Here is another, still on the same subject: The Power of Meetings. You may imagine what that can mean-the power of meetings. Here is a third catechism: Direction on the Journey: Reflections on Breaking Away. Yet again you can see immediately what this may mean. The child is invited to break with everything-with his parents, with tradition, with the bonds of society in order to rediscover his personality, in order that he may free himself of the complexes bred in him by society or the family. It is the break-away! And it is claimed that through experience of these breaks, Christ reveals to us what it means to be the Son of God. It is thus our Lord who has experienced such severances and who desires them.
When this is compared with what I was saying to you recently about the faith, we see, if we go into this domain, that it is the exact contrary of what we should be doing-we should seek bonds, above all with God. We should be the slaves of God, we should be the servants of God; and so, instead of forever speaking of severance, we should speak of ties, of those which make up our life-the love of God. What is the love of God if not a link with God, obedience to God and to His commandments? The bond with parents, love for our parents, these are the bonds of life, not of death. And these are presented to the child as ties which constrain and hem him in, bonds which diminish his personality and of which he must rid himself. There, then, is a catechism approved by Bishop Coderre and the Canadian Episcopate.
Something, then, is going on in the Church and it is something abnormal. These are facts. I do not judge Bishop Coderre, I do not judge the Canadian Episcopate. But the catechisms are there, they have been put into the hands of children. The lecture was given by the Dean of the Faculty of Theology in Strasbourg. The facts are beyond dispute. I heard of them by chance, but, faced with such happenings, actual events, which provide evidence that something is going wrong, we have no right to shut our eyes and say, That has been given us, that is from above, so let us close our eyes, accept, and obey. No, and yet again no!
St. Thomas himself asks, in the questions he poses on fraternal correction, whether fraternal correction can exist with regard to superiors. That may seem a bold question on the part of St. Thomas, but he never avoids a problem-he is not afraid of them. So he asks the question: “May one exercise fraternal correction towards one’s superiors?” After consideration of all necessary and useful distinctions, he replies: “Fraternal correction may be exercised in the case of superiors where the faith is concerned.” He is altogether right. It is not by Virtue of being a superior that any may impose on us the loss of our faith, that he may command a diminution of faith. That is the whole problem. We have no right to run the risk of losing the faith; it is the most precious gift we have and, were we stronger in our faith, we should avoid slipping gently into heresy.
What will become of those children who have studied these new catechisms for years? For those of us who are no longer young and were brought up in the true faith through the true catechism, the danger is extremely slight. What, however, will the children and young seminarians brought up in such a milieu become? That was the question put to me by the Superior General of the Franciscans, whom I met recently in Rome. He said: “Your Excellency, it is not so much for us that this is a grave crisis, but for the young seminarians now in the universities. What will they know of dogmatic and moral theology? From now on, nothing!” Moreover, since they no longer want to study these sciences, they take up experimental psychology and sociology. They no longer study dogmatic or moral theology, or canon law or the history of the Church. All that no longer interests them. Well? Those will be the priests of tomorrow. Bishops even! What is to become of your children’s faith then, of the faith of those alive at that time? We have no right to wash our hands of the matter.
Just as this crisis of faith is manifesting itself in teaching and the magisterium, it is becoming equally apparent in the priesthood and the liturgy. The conception of the priesthood and of the priest which the faith gives us has gone. Definitions are being gradually changed. Within holy Church the priest has always been looked upon as one having a “character” given by the sacrament of Order in preparation for the holy sacrifice of the Mass-the holy sacrifice, not the Supper, not any kind of communion, not the breaking of the bread of charity or the bread of the community. He was ordained for the holy sacrifice of the Mass and the continuation of the sacrifice of the cross on the altar, for the shedding on the altar of the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, for bringing to the altar by words of Consecration Him who is the King and Prince of the universe, the Creator of all things, the Savior, the Redeemer. It is for this that the priest has the sacerdotal “character” and that he is a priest. That is what a priest is; that is what we were always taught. Hence, during our years in the seminary, we had but one desire, to mount the steps of the altar. Oh! for the day when I should celebrate my first Mass! My tonsure was the first step on the way, then minor orders, then the subdiaconate, my promise of chastity, and then the diaconate; and, at last, the ascent to the altar to speak the words of Consecration, the sacrificial act, which is not a mere recital as it is today. It is not the story of the Passion! It is a true act and a true sacrifice which takes place at that moment, and it is of faith that “Soli sacerdotes sunt ministri sacrificii.”
Today we are told, “It is the whole assembly which makes the sacrifice.” The assembly indeed participates in the sacrifice, but does not offer the sacrifice, and it is not the minister of the sacrifice. The priest alone is the minister of the sacrifice. It is in this that the priest’s dignity lies. It is because of this that the priest cannot become an ordinary being. He cannot put himself on the same footing as the unconsecrated, as those who have not this sacerdotal “character.” Any such attempt would be vain. Before the angels, before God, for all eternity, the priest is a priest. In vain might he consign his cassock to the dust bin. In vain would he put on a red or multicolored pullover, he is still a priest. And if he seeks to hide his sacerdotal character he betrays his mission. Yes, he is a traitor to his mission.
The world needs the priest; the world cannot do without priests, and the priest must show himself. He has no right to conceal his “character.” He is a priest from morning to night; twenty-four hours of his day he is a priest! At all times he may be called for confession, for extreme unction, to give counsel to lost souls. The priest must be present. Thus, to make himself profane, to lack faith in his sacerdotal character signifies the end of the priest, the end of the priesthood; and we are reaching that point. No wonder seminaries are empty.
Why does the priest preserve his celibacy? There again we must appeal to faith. If we lose faith in the priesthood, if we lose the idea that the priest is made for sacrifice, that unique sacrifice which “is the sacrifice of the altar, which is the continuation of the sacrifice of our Lord, we lose altogether the meaning of celibacy. There is no longer any reason for the priest’s celibacy. We shall certainly be told that the priest is so busy and so absorbed by his functions that he cannot assume the care of a family. There is no sense in this argument. The doctor, if he has a true vocation for medicine, is as busy as a priest. If he be a true doctor and is called in day and night, he must be present to treat those who beg him to come to their aid. Hence, he too should remain unmarried since he cannot have time to spend on his wife and children. It is absurd to say that a priest is so busy that he could not take on the burden of a household. The deep reason for priestly celibacy does not lie in that. The real reason for the consecrated celibacy of the priest is that same reason for which the Most Blessed Virgin has remained a virgin, because she bore our Lord in her womb. It was therefore both right and just that she should remain forever virgin. In the same way the priest, by the words he speaks at the Consecration, brings God to earth. Such is his nearness to God, a spiritual being, the Supreme Spirit, that it is good and right and eminently fitting that the priest should be a virgin and remain celibate. That is the fundamental reason: it is because the priest has received the “character” which allows of his speaking the words of Consecration and bringing our Lord to earth that he may give Him to others. Therein lies the reason for his virginity.
But, you will say to me, why are there married priests in the East? It is a matter of tolerance. Make no mistake, it is simply tolerated. Ask the Eastern priests. A bishop may not be married. None of those Eastern clergy exercising functions of any importance may be married. Marriage is merely tolerated, and the conception is not one held by the Eastern clergy themselves. For they also reverence the celibacy of the priest. In any case it is absolutely certain that from the season of Pentecost, even if they lived with their wives, the Apostles no longer “knew” them. After all, to whom was our Lord speaking when He said: “If you would be my disciples leave all things, leave your wives.” Having received the Holy Spirit, how could the Apostles, the first to be filled with the light and power of the Holy Spirit, fail to obey the behest of our Lord Himself?
But, you will tell me, St. Paul did indeed say that he had no wife. True, St. Paul had no wife who went about with him. The Apostles’ wives doubtless continued to follow their husbands. However, profiting by the grace of the Holy Spirit which had descended upon their husbands, the Apostles, they understood what must be their future part. They were content to follow their husbands, but without “knowing” them. That is certainly the tradition of holy Church, and that is the reason for the celibacy of the priest.
Once the definition of the priestly state is lost there can be no sound conception of what it is. Hence we are now asking, What is a priest? What is priesthood? So then, after two thousand years of priests in the Church do we not yet know What a priest is? But that is lunacy. Now, it seems, the priest is said to exist for evangelization. A cardinal said that very thing to me when I told him that my seminary was wholly centered on the altar. From the sacrifice one passes to the apostolate, to evangelization, since it is from our Lord’s heart that there should spring that flame which fires the priest, who then preaches our Lord to bring souls to the Eucharist and thus to our Lord Himself That is the two-way action which the priest should take. He speaks of our Lord. But if he is created for evangelization only, I wonder evangelization of what, if it is not of Jesus Christ. It is the preaching of a so-called social justice that is neither more nor less than a real revolution.
Do not be surprised, then, if priests become Marxists. It is natural, all quite natural and logical. The people must be freed; that is the new aim of the priesthood, the liberation of humanity, ruptures. That is what the priest should preach! They are turned into militant trade unionists. Then they are understood; it is a new mystique of which the priest has need, of which the young have need. That is how they find it. But they have lost the mystique of the altar, of sacrifice. Do not be surprised that the priest, utterly bewildered, marries, that he gives up his priesthood. And there is now talk you have heard (I will name no names, but you will realize at once what I am talking about) of priests for a limited time. All this
is extremely serious.
It is the same with the Mass: if the priest is not defined by the sacrifice, and if the sacrifice is not defined by the oblation of the Victim who is our Lord Jesus Christ present on the altar, but if the sacrifice is defined as an assembly coming together for a meal, the essential and most important element-the Victim-has been left out. Indeed, there is no further need of a victim since there is no sacrifice. It is a meal. If, then, it is simply a meal, there is no further need for the victim to be present, and therefore no more need of the Real Presence of our Lord. Obviously, I could continue with the other sacraments, but I do not want to go on too long.
Another domain in which we must revive our faith, the better to realize the gravity of the situation, is the domain of the Church herself, for there is no longer faith in the holy Church; it is being lost day by day. There is a desire to submit the Church to common law, to put her on the same footing and the same level as all other religions. Even among priests, seminarians, and professors in seminaries there is a reluctance to speak of the Catholic Church as the only Church, and to state that she has the truth, that she alone brings salvation to men through Jesus Christ. When you are virtuous, you have done with vice; in so far as you are in the truth, you forsake error; in so far as you are going to heaven, you avoid hell. Do not let us come to say, then, that the Church is on the same footing as the religions which are in error: that is not possible. Well, now it is said openly: The Church is now no more than a spiritual ferment in society, but equal with other religions, perhaps a little better than the others. The Church, then is merely useful. She is no longer necessary, and that is radically contrary to the very dogma of the Catholic Church.
The Church is necessary; the Church is the one ark of salvation; we must state it. That has always been the adage of theology: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Is that intolerance? No, it is the teaching of theology; it is the truth. This does not mean that none among other religions may be saved. But none is saved by his erroneous and false religion. If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism, or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the Blood of our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps because of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion, since none can be saved by error. It is not possible. Error is contrary to truth; it is a break with the Holy Spirit. One cannot be saved by something which no longer possesses the Holy Spirit. One cannot be saved by a false religion.That has always been the Church’s teaching. How many, then, have been saved? That is the great mystery of predestination, the great mystery of the good God and His mercy; we do not know.
One thing, however, is certain: God has asked us to go and preach the Gospel. “He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.” What intolerance! Yet our Lord did indeed say: “He that believeth not shall be damned.” People must then be shown the light. If they are not told that they will be condemned if they will not believe, how can they wish to believe? Why, before the Council, were 170,000 Protestants in the United States and 80,000 in England yearly converted to Catholicism? Today there are very few. Why? Because the definition of the Church has been changed and the missionary spirit quenched. It cannot be said that all religions are of equal value. For if all religions were of equal value, why should there be any evangelization? Why set off and cross the seas? Why go to Africa or India? There is no longer any need if people can be saved within their own religion. The missionary spirit is utterly extinguished by this bad definition of the Church.
Only in so far as one says: “Salvation comes only through the Church” (and this the Church has always proclaimed) is it worthwhile to cross the seas to save some souls, to ask them to believe in our Lord and so be saved. These souls are nevertheless subject to original sin, and original sin has grave consequences. It seriously wounds our human nature, our soul. They are the four famous wounds of which St. Thomas speaks, the wounds of ignorance, malice, weakness, and concupiscence which remain even in us here present, though we have been baptized. Those wounds are still within us, and they need to be bound up and lessened that we may better live the life of Christ Jesus.
I myself spent thirty years in Africa. I have lived among these peoples, and I can tell you that there exists among them, for example, one very grave thing-hatred. There are few of those people who do not hate someone. One village hates the neighboring village. Within the Village one hates a particular family. Why? Because the villagers believe that in times past that family cast a spell on their own family, and by reason of that spell one of their own family has died, and that creates ill feeling. “Such and such a family cast a spell on yours,” parents tell their children, “and because they cast that spell, your grandfather died. Remember.” Hence springs hatred, a profound hatred which may go as far as murder or poisoning. Old family bitterness, old family rancor-it is a mortal sin to nourish in one’s heart the desire for murder.
God is indeed merciful. He understands that they live in an intricate and dramatic complex of life and society; all the same, they may render themselves guilty of mortal sin, so we must go and carry the gospel to these peoples. God asks it of us: “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mk. 15:16). Hence comes the gravity of this change in the definition of the Church.
I should like to speak also of the constitution of the Church, which has always been a constitution in which authority is personal. The pope has his personal authority because he is Bishop of Rome, because as Bishop of Rome he is the successor of Peter on the Chair of Peter in Rome; he is thus the universal Pontiff because he is Bishop of Rome. He must first be named Bishop of Rome, and when he takes his seat on the chair of Rome, he becomes Peter’s successor; and being the successor of Peter, he becomes the universal Pontiff. This is the tradition and truth taught by the Church; and that is why all the cardinals who elect the Holy Father are parish priests of Rome, for it belongs to the Roman clergy to elect their bishop. All the cardinals have Roman titles-they are parish priests of Rome, and on the Roman churches you may see the coats of arms of one or another cardinal. They are truly parish priests, under obligation to pay a pastoral visit to their churches when they visit Rome. And the cardinals elect the Bishop of Rome who, because he becomes Bishop of Rome, becomes the pope of the universal Church. It is thus personally that the pope is elected! The bishops then receive their consecration personally; through that consecration they receive a personal grace; priests too are personally consecrated. In the Church authority has always been given personally. Now there seems to be a growing desire to replace and submerge this authority in the authority of a college. This means that authority finds its hands tied.
The pope feels that his hands are more or less tied by the synod; the bishop feels his hands tied by his council of priests; the parish priest feels his hands tied because he must now consult his parishioners. It seems that if he gives directions personally he is guilty of an abuse of authority. It all ends by submerging personal in collective authority, and this is entirely contrary to the whole constitution of the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Since I do not want to trespass on your patience I will now come to the crux, I should say the heart of my lecture. I hope not to upset you, but I myself have so strong a conviction, so deep a persuasion that I cannot keep silence. Oh! I realize that I shall be told that I am against the Council. I am not against the Council, that is not true, but I could have wished that the Council bore more resemblance to its preparation.
I took part in the preparations for the Council as a member of the Central Preparatory Commission. Thus, for two years I was present at all its meetings. It was the business of the Central Commission to check and examine all the preparatory schemata issued by all the committees. Consequently, I was well placed for knowing what had been done, what remained to be examined, and what was to be put forward during the Council.
This work was carried out very conscientiously and with a concern for perfection. I possess the seventy-two preparatory schemata and can state, speaking generally, that in these seventy-two schemata the doctrine of the Church was absolutely orthodox and that there was hardly any need for retouching. There was, therefore, a fine piece of work for presentation to the Council-schemata in conformity with the Church’s teaching, adapted to some extent to our era, but with prudence and Wisdom.
Now you know what happened at the Council. A fortnight after its opening not one of the prepared schemata remained, not one! All had been turned down, all had been condemned to the wastepaper basket. Nothing remained, not a single sentence. All had been thrown out. It was laid down in the Council’s rules that a two-thirds majority was needed for the rejection of a preparatory schema. Now, in the sixth or seventh meeting of the Council a vote was taken on the preparatory schemata to decide on their study or rejection. Two-thirds of the votes were therefore needed for their rejection. As it happened, there were sixty percent against and forty percent in favor. The two-thirds majority was lacking so, under the rules of the Council, there should naturally have been a study of the schemata.
It should be said that there already existed at that time an extremely powerful body, well organized by the cardinals from the Rhineland and their perfectly equipped secretariat. They brought pressure on Pope John, saying to him, “It is inadmissible to ask us to study schemata which did not carry a majority. They must be rejected outright.” Pope John XXIII sent us word that given the fact that less than half the members of the meeting had voted for the schemata, all were rejected. After a fortnight we were left without any preparation. It was really inconceivable. Which of you gentlemen, if chairman of an administrative council, or taking part in your company’s annual meeting, would consent to meet without any preparation or any agenda? That is how the Council began.
Then there was the matter of the commissions, which were to become conciliar commissions. To begin with, there were the preconciliar commissions which had made the preparations for the Council, then the conciliar commissions had to be elected. Thereupon, a second drama ensued! You can read about that in Fr. Wiltgen’s book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber. It is a book written in English and translated, which is found among the publications of Le Cedre. Fr. Wiltgen was the director of the Council’s best press agency. His papers appeared in between eighty and eighty-five languages, from which you will see that he was extremely well organized. He was clearly very well informed and wrote this book in which he speaks of “victories.” He is a wholly impartial witness since one cannot tell whether he is liberal or conservative; he is first and foremost a technician, the press technician. For him the inter-change of ideas is not important. All that mattered to him was organization and diffusion. Hence he wanted plenty of personalities to interview. Everything was written up and sent out in all these languages-he is therefore an impartial witness. Later he wrote this extraordinary book that shows how a single organization took over the Council. What would you have me do? It is a fact of history and undeniable. As a result, the commissions that were to be set up got us into difficulties.
Picture the bishops arriving from their countries. They know one or two of their colleagues well. But how can bishops coming from all over the world and meeting in Rome know which of their colleagues assembled there are most fitted to be on the commission for Priesthood, on the one for Liturgy or for Canon Law. They are unknown to each other. Hence Cardinal Ottaviani quite properly circulated to all of them the list of members who had been on the preconciliar commissions; people, that is, who had been chosen by the Holy See and who had already worked on the commissions. It seems natural enough that some of them should be on the conciliar commissions. There was an immediate uproar. I need not name the person who sounded the alarm and said: “To submit names is to exert intolerable pressure on the Council. The Council Fathers must be left free. Once again the Roman Curia is exerting pressure to get its members elected to the Committees.” Somewhat taken aback by this revolt, the meeting was adjourned, and in the afternoon the Secretary, Bishop Felici, informed us: “Well, the Holy Father agrees that it may perhaps be preferable that the episcopal conferences should meet and furnish the lists.” Now, episcopal conferences were still in an embryonic state. They met to nominate members whom they considered particularly qualified to be on the commissions. But the people behind this coup d’etat were prepared. They already had all their lists, all the commissions prepared, and all the names chosen from the various countries, for they knew their men; and they submitted their names to us there and then. It so happened that the episcopal conferences had not had time to meet, as it had to be done Within twenty-four hours, and so they could not present names soon enough.
Obviously the lists were accepted by a big majority. Hence, from the very beginning of the Council, we were confronted with committees, two-thirds of whose members showed a very marked trend, the remaining third being nominated by the Holy Father. This became clearly apparent in the schemata teaching us, schemata wholly different in tendency from those of the preparatory commissions. Had I but time and opportunity, I should like to publish both texts-the preparatory and those given us later. It is clear that their orientations differ greatly. Certain things dominated the Council and directed its course.
It must be admitted that the same thing happened where the four moderators, elected after the presidents, were concerned. Pope John XXIII had appointed ten Council presidents. After Pope John XXIII’s death Pope Paul VI appointed only four moderators after the second session of the Council. These four moderators were Cardinal Dopfner, Cardinal Suenens, Cardinal Lercaro, and Cardinal Agagianian. The trend was obvious, it carried enormous weight for the mass of Council Fathers.
We might have had a splendid council by following up its preparations and taking Pope Pius XII as master and doctor of the Council. Pius XII had something to say on all problems. Reference to him was all that was necessary. I do not believe that there exists a single problem of the modern world and our day that he has not settled with all his learning, all his theology, all his holiness. To all, Pope Pius XII offered a solution; I do not say an ultimate, but almost final solution. That is because he really saw things from the point of View of faith. But no, there was no desire for a dogmatic council. Be sure to remember that. Pope John XXIII said it and Pope Paul VI repeated it. During the meetings of the Council we have often sought to get definitions of ideas. Define religious freedom, collegiality, etc. There came the reply: “But we are not being dogmatic, we are not stating a philosophy. We are concerned with pastoral theology.”
Define what a man is, define what is human dignity. It is all very fine to speak of human dignity, but what does it mean? What is liberty? Define those terms. No, no. We are concerned with matters pastoral. So be it-you are dealing with pastoral questions, but in that case your council is not like the other councils. The other councils were dogmatic. All the councils have combated errors. God knows there were errors enough to combat in our time. There were ample for the calling of a dogmatic council, and I well remember Cardinal Wyszinsky’s saying to us: “Draw up a schema on Communism; if there is one grave error threatening the entire world today, that is it. If Pope Pius XI felt it his duty to issue an encyclical on Communism, it would remain very useful for us, gathered here in full assembly, to draw up a schema on Communism.”
We obtained the signatures of six hundred bishops in favor of a declaration against Communism. But do you know how the story ended? The six hundred signatures were left forgotten in a drawer. And when the Chairman for Gaudium et Spes put the problem before us he said: “There have been two petitions for the condemnation of Communism.”
“Two petitions!” we answered, “there are over six hundred.”
“Then,” said he, “I know nothing about them.” A search was made. The six hundred signatures were left once more lying in the drawer.
I know these things through personal experience. If I tell you of them it is not to condemn the Council. It could have been a magnificent thing, but as matters fell out, it must be admitted that nothing can justify some occurrences. Yet, you will say, the Council is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Not necessarily. A pastoral, non-dogmatic council is a sermon which does not of itself invoke infallibility.
When at the close of the sessions we asked the Secretary of the Council, “Could you not give us what theologians call the keynote of the Council,” he replied, “Distinctions must be drawn among the various schemata and chapters, between those which had been the subject of dogmatic definition in the past and statements with the stamp of novelty; the latter call for certain reservations.” This Council, then, is not a council like the others, and for that reason we have a right to judge it prudently and with some reservation. We have no right to say that the crisis through which we are going is wholly unrelated to the Council, that it is simply a misrepresentation of the Council.
There were time bombs in the Council. I believe there were three: collegiality, religious freedom, and ecumenism. Collegiality, which corresponds to the term Egalite of the French Revolution, has the same ideology. Collegiality means the destruction of personal authority; democracy is the destruction of the authority of God, of the authority of the pope, of the authority of the bishops. Collegiality corresponds to the equality of the Revolution of 1789.
Religious freedom is the second time bomb. Religious freedom corresponds to the term Liberte of the French Revolution. It is an ambiguous term which the devil loves to use. That term was never understood in the meaning accepted by the Council. All earlier documents of the Church which speak of religious freedom mean the liberty of religion, never the liberty of religions. When speaking of that freedom, the Church was invariably referring to liberty for religion and tolerance for other religions. Error is tolerated. To give it freedom is to give it a right; but it has none. Truth alone has rights. To acknowledge freedom of religions is to give equal rights to truth and error. That is impossible. The Church can never say anything of the kind. To speak thus is, in my opinion, to blaspheme. It is opposed to the glory of God-God is Truth, Jesus Christ is Truth. To put Jesus Christ on the same footing as a Mahomet or as a Luther, what is it but blasphemy? If we have faith we have no right to admit this. It is the error of common law condemned by Pope Pius IX and all the popes. With religious liberty, it is liberty as understood by the French Revolution that penetrated the Council.
So, to the last time bomb: ecumenism. If you think for a moment you will realize that it corresponds to Fraternite. Heretics were referred to as brethren, Protestants as separated brethren. There you have fraternity. With ecumenism we have really achieved it; it is brotherhood with Communists. Time and again the popes have pointed it out. In his Encyclical Immortale Dei, Leo XIII wrote on the new law and the old law. The new law is revolutionary ideology as a whole. Read all those passages again, and you will realize that we are now living what happened in civil society and is now happening in the Church. Every pope from the time of the French Revolution had set up an insurmountable barrier against the errors of the Revolution; the ideas of the Revolution never penetrated the Church. By these three terms-collegiality, religious liberty, and ecumenism-the modernists have got what they wanted.
These, then, are the aims against which we have striven. The Church has indeed the words of eternal life, she will not perish, but who can say how small a remnant of her little flock will survive once these errors and ideologies have penetrated everywhere.
What is to be said of the liturgy and of the sacraments? If the Eucharist is to be valid, and so for all the other sacraments, there must be present the matter, form, and intention necessary for their validity. The pope himself cannot alter that. The matter is of divine institution; the pope cannot say: “Tomorrow, alcohol shall be used for the baptizing of infants.” It is not within his power. There are things in the sacraments the pope cannot change. Neither can be essentially change the form; certain words are essential. One may not say, for example, “I baptize you in the name of God.” Our Lord Himself gave us the form: “You shall baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Neither can the pope alter the fact that the priest’s intention is necessary. How can that be known? Remember the historical fact of Pope Leo XIII’s proclamation that all Anglican orders were invalid for lack of intention; lack of intention because it is necessary to will what the Church wills. True, the faith of the priest is not a necessary element: one priest may no longer have the faith, another’s may have dwindled, a third may not believe fully; that has no direct, only an indirect, influence on the validity of the sacraments. Now, Anglicans by the very fact that they have lost the faith, have refused to do what the Church does.
Would not the same situation arise in the case of priests who have lost the faith? We shall find priests who will no longer carry out the sacrament of the Eucharist in accordance with the definition of the Council of Trent. If they are asked: “Is the Eucharist that you are celebrating that of the Council of Trent?” The reply will be: “No. Much has happened since the days of the Council of Trent. We have Vatican II now. Now it is transignification and transfinalisation. Transubstantiation-the Real Presence of our Lord, of the Body of our Savior, the physical presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine? No, not in these days.” Should priests say that to you, the Consecration is invalid, for they no longer carry out what the Church defined at the Council of Trent. That is irreformable. What the Council of Trent laid down on the Holy Mass and the Eucharist Christians are bound to believe till the end of time. Terms may be made more explicit, but they cannot be changed; that is an impossibility. Whoever says that he does not accept transubstantiation, says the Council of Trent, is anathema, and therefore separated from the Church. One day you may be obliged to ask your priests: “Do you believe in the definitions of the Council of Trent, yes or no? If you no longer believe, your Eucharist is invalid. The Lord is not present.” Because they are desirous of doing what the so-called new theology, the new religion, seeks to do, it is no longer what the Church wills. That is why we must be very circumspect. One may not do what one likes with the sacraments. The sacraments were instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and explicitly defined by the whole tradition of the Church.
What, then, must we do? I will not trespass on your patience by a longer discourse. Confronted with this unleashing of the devil against the Church-for it is indeed that-what are we to do? We must look at things in terms of the supernatural. The devil is at large today-this is perhaps one of his last battles, an out-and-out conflict. He is seeking to attack on all fronts. If Our Lady of Fatima said that one day the devil would mount to the highest spheres of the Church, it is not, perhaps, incorrect. For myself, I affirm nothing, I condemn no-one, but if it be true that she said it, it could happen. When will it happen? I do not know, but there are now signs and symptoms which might lead us to suspect that among the highest circles in Rome there are now people who have lost the faith. I am ready to say, do, and grant whatever the powers in Rome, from the pope himself to the lowest secretaries of Congregations desire, provided that they do not rob us of our faith. Do not make me change what the Council of Trent said. Do not make me change my Credo. Do not make me change the essence of the sacraments. If an angel from heaven tells you what is contrary to the truth, says St. Paul, do not listen to him.
We must pray. We must do penance. The Blessed Virgin has told us so. But we must put it into practice. We must say the rosary as a family. We must pray before the Blessed Sacrament. Pray to our Lord, to our Lady, to our guardian angels. We must pray to St. Michael the Archangel, we must live among those in heaven that they may intercede for us and help us in our tragic plight. Today, it is when bombs are beginning to fall or there are other grave dangers that people have recourse to prayer; it is then that they begin to tremble and think of God.
But we are living at a time when bombs are raining on us, and we are in danger of losing the faith. It is infinitely worse to lose the life of the soul than the life of the body. Let us, therefore, pray and do penance. We should know how to do without television and break with the desires of the flesh, the lusts of the eyes, the pride of life and honors. We must know how to do penance, abstaining from all that is too much of this world, all that panders to the flesh and indecent dress. All such things should be wholly forbidden to true Christians or we shall be bereft of God’s grace, the grace needful now to our salvation. We should go from one disaster to another.
Finally, you must organize your apostolate, and give help and succor to your priests. I fully realize their present problems of resistance, especially for those in the ministry, those who hold office. I fully understand that it is difficult, because a moral pressure is exerted on them and it puts them under a kind of obligation to act as they do and to modify to some extent all the rites of the Mass. The adoration of the Blessed Sacrament that used to take place, all the Benedictions of the Blessed Sacrament that used to be celebrated, all that is disappearing; the rosary must no longer be said, and so forth. Your priests need support. If they feel themselves in the midst of encouraging Christians, priests will again take courage and revert to the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, the recitation of the rosary; they will no longer give Communion in the hand; they will not invite just anybody to preach or choose just any reading. Little by little there will be a return to good and healthy traditions, even-so far as possible-to the traditional Canon at least. It is a prayer dating back to the Apostles.
When we are told: “You have no right to do this; Pope St. Pius V made one Mass, Pope Paul VI has made another. You should adopt the Mass of Pope Paul VI and abandon that of Pope St. Pius V,” it is not at all the same thing. The Mass given us is an altered Mass. The best proof of this is to be found in the definition of the Mass in Article VII, which is not the same definition as that of the Council of Trent. Pope St. Pius V changed nothing. On the contrary, he simply codified what was from the time of the Apostles. St. Thomas himself says so: explaining the whole Mass, he says frequently that these prayers belong to the apostolic tradition. The prayers of the Canon and many others are thus those of the apostolic tradition. Pope St. Pius V changed nothing. It is now that, for the sake of ecumenism, for the sake of praying jointly with Protestants, we are made to change. In his-«dare I say-naiveté, Fr. Schutz of Taizé said it in plain terms when, coming back from Rome where he had been attached to the Commission for the Liturgy and for the Reform of the Mass, he commented: “Now we can say the Mass with Catholic priests.” Why now? Why not before? Clearly something has changed.
Then comes the question of the catechism: Catechisms must be organized in such a way that there will be groups formed everywhere to expound true doctrine and ensure that children shall be well taught. God will bless you. Of that you may be sure. But what will our priests say? What will the parish priests say? We shall be refused First Communion, Confirmation. Leave that to God in His goodness. Teach your children the Faith and all will be well. God will one day set wide the doors. Already, bishops are becoming seriously worried. No-one left in the seminaries! There will be no more priests... As for you, keep the faith, give the faith to the children, and you will find that all will go well.
In any case, I can assure you of one thing-my seminarians hold fast to the faith, and I am edified by these young people. They are pious, they are lighthearted. Many of them have taken their degrees: I have two engineers, a doctor, four or five B.A.’s in mathematics and an MA. in biology. They are no longer children, but young men who know what they are doing, who know what they want. Hence I have great confidence in these young people and am convinced of their outstanding qualities. For me, it is a miracle, a real miracle. For all these young people have lived like all the other young people, they have been in the universities and so been in contact with the world. When it is said that these young people will not be fitted for the world-come, are they not drawn from the universities? One of them read biology for seven years, and he would not be adapted to the world? Be serious! These young people are well aware of what they are doing. They love the holy sacrifice of the Mass because they see that it is the heart of the Church. It is all deeply consoling and encouraging. I assure you that you must in no way despair of our time-on the contrary. There are still very fine vocations; do but give these vocations the opportunity to flower naturally, and our seminaries will be full once more.
I am convinced that could I open seminaries today in the United States, in England, in Italy, and even in German Switzerland, I could fill them with true vocations. It is an absolute certainty. If I tell you this, it is to encourage you so that you may not lose heart, and I keenly hope that you too may be able to say with St. Paul in the evening of his days, when he was awaiting our Lord’s reward: “I have kept the faith.” Why did he say that? Because he realized that to keep the faith to the end of one’s days, even until death, is a very great grace from God, it is the greatest grace of all that of final perseverance. I pray God that you too, till the ending of your days, may keep the faith so that the Church may live on.
A Bishop Speaks, Writings and Addresses 1963-1976, Angelus Press, 2nd ed., 2007, pp. 119-142
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1971 Address - The Priest and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:47 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
THE PRIEST AND THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
Address given at the retreat for the priest-members of the Association of Priests and Religious of St. Anthony Mary Claret.
Barcelona, Spain
March 1971
My dear Friends,
It is all too clear that the great suffering of the Church today is born of the number of perjured priests, of the many priests who, heedless of their sacred character, laicize themselves, take on the spirit of the world, and forsake the only true wisdom which our Lord has taught us, the wisdom of the cross.
In the face of these betrayals and these desertions you, by your attitude, by your declarations and by your publications, have reacted healthily, firmly professing your faith. May you be thanked, congratulated, and heartened for the holy example you have given and are still giving to all priests throughout the world. Since you have done me the honor of an invitation to come and speak a few words to you, I should like, with God’s grace and in all humility, to set before you in a few questions a problem vital to the priest, to every Catholic priest.
You admit that many priests have lost the true sense of the priesthood, that they are asking what a priest is and what part he should play in society! Well! I venture to ask you this question: What is the essential role of the priest, the reason why our Lord Jesus Christ established that office? If we are to cure these priests of their self-distrust, we must ourselves understand the nature of the priest in order both to help our wavering brothers who are in danger of going astray and to find aid in our own striving for sanctification.
You have, of course, already answered the question: What is a priest? You answer it in your hearts, I think, in the words spoken at the birth of the priesthood: “Do this in memory of me.” Indeed, the Church has always believed and proclaimed that it is through these words that the Apostles received a share in the priesthood of our Lord, i.e., the sacrament of Order.
Yes, the words are brief, but how heavy with meaning: “this” “in memory of me.” This - the sacrifice of the cross continued, perpetuated in its physical and mystical reality. It is the sacrifice of the cross continued by the Bread and Wine consecrated and become substantially the Body and Blood of Jesus. This – is the sacrifice of bloodless oblation, of the living Christ immolated on the cross once and for all and continuing to plead for us! This – is the Body and Blood of the risen Jesus becoming the food of His Mystical Body, for it is by this sacrifice of the cross that the graces of the resurrection enter into the souls of the faithful at baptism, in penance, in extreme unction, and in all the graces of the sacraments.
Sharers in the priesthood of Christ Jesus, ministers of the divine mysteries, chosen and marked by our Lord’s election as priests for all eternity, we are this for the sacrifice of the holy Mass and by the sacrifice of the Cross, both being substantially the same and unique sacrifice of our Lord. Thus, at the call of the priest, there rises the cross on which hangs the ideal Priest, the ideal Victim, the raison d’étre of the Incarnate Word, the raison d’étre of the Redeemer. Tota vita crux et martyrium!
The priest has no reason for existence, no meaning, save in the sacrifice of the Mass. Let us then seek for a better understanding of the Mass that we may better understand our priesthood. We will say a few words about the priesthood and sacrifice in general, then about the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ and, finally, about that priesthood continued in Holy Mass by the ministry of priests.
RELIGION, SACRIFICE, PRIESTHOOD
The human race has always felt the need for priests, i.e., for men who, by a mission officially confided to them, may act as mediators between God and humanity; men who, wholly consecrated to this mediation, make it their life’s work; men chosen to offer to God official prayers and sacrifices in the name of society which, as such, shares the duty of rendering to God this public and social worship, recognizing Him as the supreme lord and first principle, stretching out to Him as to their last end, giving Him thanks and seeking His favour.
Indeed, among all the peoples Whose customs are known to us, when not forced by violence to deny the most sacred laws of human nature, priests are to be found, though often in the service of false gods; wherever any religion is professed or altars raised there is a priesthood, encompassed by special marks of honor and veneration. (Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacrodotii Fastigium, December 20, 1938)
Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Caritatis Stadium of July 25, 1898, said:
Quote:Necessitatem sacrrifcii vis ipsa et natura religionis continet....Remotisque sacrrificii nulla nec esse nec cogitari religio potent. - Now the very essence of Religion implies Sacrifice. For the perfection of Divine Worship is found in the submissive and reverent acknowledgment that God is the Supreme Lord of all things, by Whose power we and all our belongings exist. This constitutes the very nature of Sacrifice, which, on this account, is emphatically called a “thing Divine.” If Sacrifices are abolished, Religion can neither exist nor be conceived. (§10)
St. Thomas in Ila-Hae, Question 81, Art. 1, shows us very clearly that religion, which is a virtue supplementing the virtue of justice, binds us to God:
Quote:Religion...denotes properly a relation to God....Religion has two kinds of acts. Some are its proper and immediate acts, which it elicits, and by which man is directed to God alone, for instance, sacrifice, adoration and the like. But it has other acts, which it produces through the medium of the Virtues which it commands, directing them to the honor of God....Accordingly to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation is an act of religion as commanding...
Sacrifice, which means the offering up and the submission of man to God, is the outward act most perfectly befitting the nature of man.
In Question 85, Art. 1, St. Thomas tells us:
Quote:It is a dictate of natural reason that man should use certain sensibles, by offering them to God in sign of the subjection and honor due to Him, like those who make certain offerings to their lord in recognition of his authority. Now this is what we mean by a sacrifice, and consequently the offering of sacrifice is of the natural law.
Nothing, then, is as deeply engraved in human nature as religion and its essential act-sacrifice. Now, to achieve a holy thing “sacrum facere”-there must be consecrated persons set apart, capable of drawing near to God and serving Him. This person will be the priest-“sacerdos,” “sacra dans.” We shall see how, in his infinite goodness and mercy, God has so arranged all things that worship worthy of Him may be rendered by the men who have departed from Him.
THE PRIESTHOOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST
If it be indeed true that the natural order demands that religion, sacrifice, and the priesthood should be closely united, so much so that one cannot be dissociated from the other without totally destroying religion, the order of revelation admirably confirms this. We cannot understand the incarnation of the Son of God without applying to Jesus those fundamental ideas which are the raison d’étre of the Incarnation: “Ego te glorificavi super terram, opus consummavi quod dedisti mihi ut faciam...Manifestavi nomen tuum hominibus” (Jn. 1714-6).
Jesus is God’s ideal religious. He is the perfect oblation, the perfect victim. We can never sufficiently meditate on these sublime and divine realities. St. Paul has described to us in moving terms the greatness of our Lord’s priesthood, the sublimity of His oblation and sacrifice. Jesus is essentially the Priest-Mediator, the Anointed, that is to say Christ, by His hypostatic union. He will forever be the one and only true priest, the one true victim acceptable to God. “Tu es sacredos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech.” Thus the essential acts of our natural and supernatural religion have been forever determined by God’s Son Jesus Christ, His divine Son.
Let us then marvel at God’s ordering of all that relates thenceforth to the worship owed Him. It goes without saying that what God has ordained He has ordained for all eternity, and that none soever of His creatures may change the essential norms. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange has admirably expounded these things in his book The Love of God and the Cross of Jesus, for that is what will henceforward dominate all our holy religion, here on earth and in heaven-the cross of Jesus, the altar on which the Priest and Victim sacrificed Himself. What a Priest and what a Victim! “Habemus Pontifcem magnum, qui penetravit caelos, Jesum Filium Dei” (Heb. 4:14). “If there is a revealed doctrine which allows us to glimpse all the greatness of the sacrifice of the Mass,” says Fr. Garrigou, “it is unquestionably that of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” That is tantamount to saying: If there is a revealed doctrine that gives us a glimpse of the priest as he is and as he should be, it is unquestionably that of the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let me draw your attention particularly to the following lines:
Quote:Just as the greatness of Mary, all her privileges and all that is the source of her glory today, came to her through her divine Motherhood, the dignity of the priest, his privileges and his duties come to him through his sharing in the priesthood of Christ, which he realizes in essence when he pronounces the words of consecration during the celebration of the holy sacrifice of the Mass. His priestly character, his virginity, his intrinsic power over the sacraments and the mystical Body of our Lord Jesus Christ derive from the power over His Body and Blood given by our Lord Himself.
As Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange says: “The more the ineffable riches of the priesthood of our Lord, of His Passion, His Cross, and His Resurrection are plumbed, the more deeply the mysterious realities of the Sacrifice of the Mass are penetrated.” Thus we have a clearer understanding of the definitions given by the Council of Trent against the Lutherans:
Quote:In the divine sacrifice accomplished in the course of the Mass, Christ, who offered Himself upon the altar of the Cross, shedding His blood for us, makes a bloodless sacrifice. It is the same Victim, it is also the same priest...idem nunc offerens sacradotum ministerio. He offered Himself on the Cross, He offers Himself now through His ministers, only the way of oblation differs. (Conc. Trid., Session 22, Canon 2, D2. 940.)
In substance, then, the sacrifice is the same. Thus, the better to measure the importance of the sacrifice of the Mass, then the reality of the priestly character that assimilates the priest to our Lord Himself, hypostatically united to the Word, and, finally, the real and substantial presence of our Lord under the species of bread and wine, we must acknowledge in the Gospel how great a place our Lord Himself has given to His priesthood at the Last Supper and on the cross in His life here below-and for the times to come.
It is on the cross that He will say: “Consummatum est.” His work is finished. It is the hour which haunts Him all His life: “Nondum venit hora mea” (Jn. 2:4); “Sciens Jesus quia venit hora eius” (13:1); “Venit hora ut clarificetur Filius hominis” (12:23). The hour that Jesus foresees is the hour of sacrifice; He desires it. He wants it in conformity with the will of His Father. This hour dominates His whole life, it was for this that He came. It is at oncethe hour of His death and the hour of His triumph over the powers of darkness.
He who accomplishes this sacrifice and offers Himself as a victim for the redemption of the world is the Word of God made man. It is this same sacrifice which we accomplish on our altars; it is in this same priesthood that we participate.
St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, describes the infinite superiority of the priesthood of our Lord over that of Levi. Jesus is above the angels, above Moses-incomparably above the high priests of the Old Law: “Novissime, diebus istis locustus est nobis in Filio…: tanto melior angelis effectus, quanto differentius prae illis nomen hereditavit” (Heb. 1:2, 4).
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS; THE PRIESTHOOD OF PRIESTS
If you would know the why and wherefore of the real presence in the holy Mass, the reality of your priesthood and the necessity, for celibacy, since a married priest must always exist on sufferance as an exception destined to disappear, examine the greatness of our Lord’s priesthood and the sublimity of Christ’s sacrifice. You will then realize that your whole priestly being exists to continue the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ and thus to lead souls to this inexhaustible source of graces for their sanctification and glorification. As Fr. Garrigou rightly says: “Just as the priesthood is the supreme sacred function, sacrifice, as its name implies, is the supreme sacred action. There is no priesthood without sacrifice, there is no sacrifice without priesthood” (op. Cit. p. 757). Between the two terms there is a certain transcendental and essential relationship.
Jesus is the most perfect of priests, the holiest of victims, the most closely united to His Mystical Body. Indeed, Jesus as a priest could not be more closely united to God since He himself is God. He could not be more closely united to the Victim since He Himself is the victim. He could not be more closely united to men since He is the Head of the Mystical Body and has taken the same nature as they.
At Mass it is always the same Priest, the same victim, the same Mystical Body united with the Priest who is the Christ. The ministers offer the sacrifice only “in persona Christi.” The more deeply we enter into these considerations the more we must realize how close and how real is the bond between the Cross and Mass-that the bond between the eternal Priest and His ministers is necessary.
Here we put our finger on the three realities which are essential in the Mass for it to be the continuation of the sacrifice of the cross: the reality of sacrifice, i.e., the oblation of the victim brought about in the consecration; the real and substantial presence of the Victim that must be offered, and thus the necessity of transubstantiation; the need of a priest who is the minister of the principal Priest, who is our Lord, and consecrated by His priesthood.
The Church, to which our Lord bequeathed His ministerial priesthood to accomplish it till the end of time, has carried out the sacrifice of the Mass with love and devotion; it has ordained its prayers, ceremonies, and rites to signify these realities and to preserve our faith in these realities willed and determined by God Himself. The Council of Trent teaches us that (Session 22, Canon 5):
Quote:The nature of man being such that he cannot easily or without some external aids rise to meditation on divine things, the Church, as a good Mother, has established certain practices, such as speaking parts of the Mass quietly and others aloud; and in accordance with the discipline and tradition of the Apostles it has introduced such ceremonies as mystical blessings, lights, incense, ornaments and many kindred things so as, in that way, to signify the majesty of so great a sacrifice, and to raise the souls of the faithful by these outward signs of piety and religion to the contemplation of the great things hidden in this sacrifice.
We owe it to truth to affirm and maintain without fear of mistake that the Mass codified by St. Pius V clearly expressed these great realities of sacrifice, the Real Presence, and the sacerdotal character of priests, besides the essential relation to the sacrifice of the cross, from which all the supernatural Virtue of the Mass derives. To weaken and blur the expression of our faith in these realities which constitute the very essence of the sacrifice bequeathed to us by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself could lead to the most disastrous consequences, for the sacrifice of the Mass is the heart, the soul, and the mystical wellspring of the Church.
The whole history of Protestantism illustrates Luther’s blasphemous saying: “Let us destroy the Mass and we shall have destroyed the Church.” The recently canonized English martyrs sealed that truth with their blood. Do not the ills of the Church, the weakening of faith, the dwindling number of vocations, the destruction of religious communities, all these grievous effects of which we are the bewildered witnesses spring from the doing away with altars and their replacement by the tables of the Eucharistic meal? I leave these thoughts for your consideration.
CONCLUSION
Here are some quotations which may contribute to our sanctification:
Just as the whole life of the Savior was ordained to His own sacrifice, the entire life of the priest, which should inwardly reflect the image of Christ, should with Him, by Him and in Him be a sacrifice pleasing to God. Pius XII, Menti Nostrae, September 23, 1950.
So closely bound as he is to the divine mysteries, the priest cannot but hunger and thirst for justice and holiness. As he must offer and sacrifice himself with Christ, he cannot but feel the need to adapt his life to that high dignity and direct all his conduct to sacrifice. Thus he will not content himself with the celebration of Holy Mass; he will have it inwardly. By so doing he will draw the supernatural strength which will utterly transform him and enable him to share in the life of sacrifice of the divine Redeemer. In this way the priest will strive to reproduce in his soul What happens on the altar of sacrifice. It is the summons of St. Peter Chrysologos:
Be the sacrifice and the priest of God....Priests and my beloved sons, we hold within our hands a great treasure, the pearl of great price, namely, the inexhaustible riches of the Blood of Jesus Christ. Let us draw as fully as possible from this treasure so that, by the entire sacrifice of ourselves to the Father with Jesus Christ, we may be true mediators of holiness in all that touches the worship of God.
Pope John XXIII, taking up these words of his predecessor, added:
Quote:It is this lofty doctrine that the Church has in mind when she calls her ministers to a life of asceticism and adjures them to celebrate the eucharistic Sacrifice with deep piety. Is it not because of a failure to grasp the close, reciprocal bond which unites the daily offering of one’s self to the offering of the Mass that priests have gradually come to lose the first fervor of their ordination?
That was the experience attained by the Curé d’Ars: “The cause of the priest’s falling off is the neglect of the Mass” (Sacerodotti Nostri Primordia, August 1, 1959). Finally, here is the advice of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange:
Quote:To end with a practical conclusion. It is not possible to urge too strongly on interior souls the need for a great devotion to the Consecration, which is the very essence of the sacrifice of the Mass and the most solemn moment in our every day. Jesus, when He instituted the Eucharist, raised His eyes to heaven, His face lit up and He longed to annihilate Himself in some degree under the species of bread and wine to all eternity that He might thus remain really and substantially among us in giving Himself to us as food. Thus, at the moment of Consecration, the priest, Minister of the universal Mediator, must follow His example, lifting up his eyes to heaven in an ardent desire to unite himself with the oblation of the ever living Christ who does not cease to intercede for us and, with Himself, offer to His Father all the living members of His Mystical Body, especially those who follow His example of suffering (The Love of God, p. 771).
A poet, Jacques Debout, in his poem “The Three Against the Other, ” expresses through the mouth of Satan, who is attacking our Lord, the value of a Mass.
THE DEMON OF RICHES
What does He set up against us?
SATAN
The Eternal Sacrifice
Which has crushed my head and, despite my efforts,
Daily wrenches from me both the living and dead.
In the hidden, but true, destiny of nations
Masses are so many Revolutions.
Those which are unseen and in their lonely depths
Can disrupt worlds from within.
The Mass, overflowing both Priest and Missal,
Is an event, forever universal,
And when, powerless, I run my head against some obstacle,
It is because in a church, a barn or hut,
Some man, poor and infirm, has held in his hand
The formidable Host and the dread Wine.
A Bishop Speaks, Writings and Addresses 1963-1976, Angelus Press, 2nd ed., 2007, pp. 87-96
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1979 The New Mass and the Pope |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:41 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
The New Mass and the Pope
How often during these last ten years have I not had occasion to respond to questions concerning the weighty problems of the New Mass and the Pope. In answering them I have ever been careful to breathe with the spirit of the Church, conforming myself to her Faith as expressed in her theological principles, and to her pastoral prudence as expressed in moral theology and in the long experiences of her history.
I think I can say that my own views have not changed over the years and that they are, happily, those of the great majority of priests and faithful attached to the indefectible Tradition of the Church. It should be clear that the few lines which follow are not an exhaustive study of these problems, The purpose, rather is to clarify our conclusions to such an extent that no one may be mistaken regarding the official position of the Society of St, Pius X.
It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.
Now, it is easy to show that the New Mass, as it was formulated by the officially authorized Conciliar Liturgical Commission considered together with the accompanying explanation of Mgr. Bugnini, manifests an inexplicable rapprochement with the theology and liturgy of the Protestants. The following fundamental dogmas of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not clearly represented and are even contradicted:
- that the priest is the essential minister of the Rite;
- that in the Mass there is a true sacrifice, a sacrificial action;
- that the Victim or Host is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, present under the species of bread and wine, with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity;
- that this Sacrifice is a propitiatory one;
- that the Sacrifice and the Sacrament are effected by the words of the Consecration alone, and not also by those which either precede or follow them.
It is sufficient to enumerate a few of the novelties in the New Mass to be convinced of the rapprochement with the Protestants;
- the altar replaced by a table without an altar stone;
- Mass celebrated facing the people, concelebrated, in a loud voice, and in the vernacular;
- the Mass divided into two distinct parts: Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist;
- the cheapening of the sacred vessels, the use of leavened bread, distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, and by the laity, and even by women;
- the Blessed Sacrament hidden in corners;
- the Epistle read by women;
- Holy Communion brought to the sick by laity.
All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.
Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.
The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity. When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.
It is clear, however, that fewer and fewer Masses are valid these days, as the faith of priests is destroyed and they possess no longer the intention to do what the Church does – an intention which the Church cannot change. The current formation of those who are called seminarians today does not prepare them to celebrate Mass validly. The propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is no longer considered the essential work of the priest. Nothing is sadder or more disappointing than to read the sermons or teachings of the Conciliar bishops on the subject of vocations, or on the occasion of a priestly ordination. They no longer know what a priest is.
Nevertheless, in order to judge the subjective fault of those who celebrate the New Mass as of those who attend it, we must apply the roles of the discernment of spirits given us in moral and pastoral theology. We (the priests of the Society) must always act as doctors of the soul and not as judge and hangmen. Those who are tempted by this latter course are animated by a bitter spirit and not true zeal for souls. I hope that our young priests will be inspired by the words of St. Pius X in his first encyclical, and by the numerous texts on this subject to be found in such works as The Soul of the Apostolate by Dom Chautard, Christian Perfection and Contemplation by Garrigou-Lagrange, and Christ the Ideal of the Monk by Dom Marmion.
Let us now pass to a second but no less important subject: does the Church have a true Pope or an impostor on the Throne of St. Peter? Happy are those who have lived and died without having to pose such a question! One must indeed recognize that the pontificate of Paul VI posed, and continues to pose, a serious problem of conscience for the faithful. Without reference to his culpability for the terrible demolition of the Church which took place under his pontificate, one cannot but realize that he hastened the causes of that decline in every domain. One can fairly ask oneself how it was possible that a successor of Peter can, in so little time, have caused more damage to the Church than the French Revolution.
Some precise facts, such as the signatures which he gave to Article VII in the Instruction concerning the New Mass, and to the Declaration on Religious Liberty, are indeed scandalous and have led certain traditionalists to affirm that Paul VI was heretical and thus no longer Pope. They argue further that, chosen by a heretical Pope, the great majority of the cardinals are not cardinals at all and thus lacked the authority to elect another Pope. Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II were thus, they say, illegitimately elected. They continue that it is inadmissible to pray for a pope who is not Pope or to have any "conversations" (like mine of November 1978) with one who has no right to the Chair of Peter.
As with the question of the invalidity of the Novus Ordo, those who affirm that there is no Pope over-simplify the problem. The reality is more complex. If one begins to study the question of whether or not a Pope can be heretical, one quickly discovers that the problem is not as simple as one might have thought. The very objective study of Xaverio de Silverira on this subject demonstrates that a good number of theologians teach that the Pope can be heretical as a private doctor or theologian but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. One must then examine in what measure Pope Paul VI willed to engage in infallibility in the diverse cases where he signed texts close to heresy if not formally heretical.
But we can say that in the two cases cited above, as in many another, Paul VI acted much more the Liberal than as a man attached to heresy. For when one informed him of the danger that he ran in approving certain conciliar texts, he would proceed to render the text contradictory by adding a formula contrary in meaning to affirmations already in the text, or by drafting an equivocal formula. Now, equivocation is the very mark of the Liberal, who is inconsistent by nature.
The Liberalism of Paul VI, recognized by his friend, Cardinal Daniélou, is thus sufficient to explain the disasters of his pontificate. Pope Pius IX, in particular, spoke often of the Liberal Catholic, whom he considered a destroyer of the Church. The Liberal Catholic is a two-sided being, living in a world of continual self-contradiction. While he would like to remain Catholic, he is possessed by a thirst to appease the world. He affirms his faith weakly, fearing to appear too dogmatic, and as a result, his actions are similar to those of the enemies of the Catholic Faith.
Can a Pope be Liberal and remain Pope? The Church has always severely reprimanded Liberal Catholics, but she has not always excommunicated them. Here, too, we must continue in the spirit of the Church. We must refuse Liberalism from whatever source it comes because the Church has aways condemned it. She has done so because it is contrary, in the social realm especially, to the Kingship of Our Lord.
Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.
The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no Cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.
Our Fraternity absolutely refuses to enter into such reasonings.
We wish to remain attached to Rome and to the Successor of Peter, while refusing his Liberalism through fidelity to his predecessors. We are not afraid to speak to him, respectfully but firmly, as did St. Paul with St. Peter.
And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith.
Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph.
Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly, we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope.
In conclusion, we must have that missionary spirit which is the true spirit of the Church. We must do everything to bring about the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the words of our Holy Patron, St. Pius X: Instaurare omnia in Christo. We must restore all things in Christ, and we must submit to all, as did Our Lord in His Passion for the salvation of souls and the triumph of Truth. "In hoc natus sum," said Our Lord to Pilate, "ut testimonium perhibeam veritati." : “I was born to give witness to the Truth."
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1975 Address - The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-06-2020, 06:37 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - An Address Given by His Grace: Ottawa, Canada November 1975
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have come among you to primarily speak of the most pressing problem of our time, which is the preservation of our Catholic Faith. I am not referring simply to certain liturgical modifications, nor to certain aspects of renewal, which result from the Second Vatican Council. These details, of course, do have their importance. I am here rather to offer encouragement in the struggle to preserve the essentials of our Faith, for our Faith is vital, and before going on, I would like to bring your attention to what precisely constitutes the essentials of our Faith.
Our Lord Jesus Christ came down to earth to redeem mankind, and it was by means of the Cross-that He achieved this. The central point of Christ's life on earth, the purpose for which the Son of God became man was to die on the Cross for the salvation of all men, not only the faithful, not only Catholics, but all men. Unfortunately, not all men have accepted Christ's message but be they Buddhists, Moslems or Protestants, all - at least all who wished to be saved - are bound to achieve their salvation through the bloodshed for them by Jesus Christ.
This, of course, is very simple for us who are Catholics. This is our Faith, the Faith we have always been taught, and yet, in our own time, how many Catholics still do accept this truth, that salvation comes to all men through Jesus Christ, that outside of Christ there is no salvation? I find it extraordinary that Catholics will questions the age-old adage, "no salvation outside the Church." This is precisely the most important question facing mankind today, just as it was in all ages. Indeed, there is nothing more vital to man than for him to know how he is to be saved, by whom he is to be saved, and in what manner he is to be saved. Can there possibly be a question of greater moment for those who inhabit the earth?
Now, it is quite certain that when we proclaim today that there is "no salvation outside the Church," many Catholics rise up incredulously and affirm that this is nonsense, that otherwise those not in the Church must be condemned to hell. The fact is, however, that this remains a crucial tenet of interest to all mankind. As Catholics we are bound to affirm what the Church has always affirmed, because the Church is the repository of all truth: God made man and the Son of God was made man to be crucified for the salvation of all men. Can there possibly be any other source of salvation outside of the Son of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ? Can we as Catholics accept that Luther, Buddha or Mohammed are also means of eternal salvation? Are they also in heaven seated at the right hand of God? Yet today, despite the absurdity, many Catholics no longer accept that there is "no salvation outside the Church."
Protestants or Buddhists who achieve their salvation through an act of love for God - in effect, implicitly a baptism of desire - do so through Christ and His Church. The Church teaches that no man is saved except through Our Lord Jesus Christ. This, as Catholics, is what we must believe, for it is what the Church has always taught. There is no other God, no other truth, no other salvation but Christ Jesus. This is the center, the foundation, the goal of our Christian life, and it will one day be the crowning glory of our Christian life. There is nothing, in a word, outside of Christ Jesus who is our only joy on earth and in heaven.
You understand, I am sure, how important it is to affirm these truths. Jesus Himself, and not ourselves, chose the means for us to receive His Grace. The means He chose was the Cross -, and He chose that the Cross - and His Sacrifice upon it be continued on earth upon our altars. There is no other place but upon our altars that Christ's Calvary is continued in this world. Catholics in every age have understood the enormity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Our ancestors most certainly understood it, our ancestors who built the worthy church buildings, which adorn your country, and the extraordinary cathedrals and basilicas of Europe. Visitors the world over come to these shrines to stand in awe before the splendor of the labor and genius of our ancestors of a thousand years ago. Why did they erect such monuments, expending decade upon decade of their fragile lives to bringing forth these magnificent cathedrals? For the sake of the altar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and for the sake of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is celebrated upon it. And it was Christ Himself who wished it.
Jesus Christ instituted the priesthood at the Last Supper on the occasion of the first sacrifice - for the Last Supper was indeed a Sacrifice, as the Council of Trent teaches - when He made priests of His Apostles and enjoined them, "Do this in memory of Me." He did not say, "Tell this story, describe this action of Mine to your children and to future generations." He said rather, "Do this, re-do this, continue to do this which I have done." It is very important that we realize the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an action and not a narrative, not a story. I am sure you must realize why I am emphasizing: it is precisely because in our time Christ's intentions are being subverted, contradicted and suppressed.
It is vital, therefore, that we insist upon what is essential to our Holy Faith and indeed to the very idea of Christian civilization, in which we have good reason to glory still, and which we hope with all our hearts to regain and to see revitalized as it was in medieval times. The world chuckles today about the Middle Ages. Modem man tells us it was an age of obscurity - the dark ages - but history itself tells us the medieval age was the greatest age in history, and the thirteenth the greatest century that mankind has ever known. Why? Because of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and because of the spirituality generated by the Mass. Today, more than ever before, our civilization needs its altars, needs it priests to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which in fact is a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of the Cross. The whole of our Christian civilization rest upon our altars. But if we destroy our altars and replace them with a table, and upon this table we simply prepare a meal which is but a memorial of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Last Supper, which is but a narrative of what He said and did on that occasion, then we have forfeited the basis upon which Christian civilization rests. The Catholic Church then ceases to exist, for the Church rests upon the dogma, upon the reality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, whence comes Holy Communion, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. For Holy Communion - the Eucharist - transforms our very souls, civilizes us, disciplines us and imposes order upon our souls. Without the Eucharist we reek of disorder.
We frequently wonder why there are so few priests today. It is because there is no longer any preoccupation with the Sacrifice of the Mass. There is no more ideal, no more goal for the priest to pursue, His goal had always been to go unto the Altar of God to offer the Sacrifice of Calvary. That is precisely what made the sublimity of the priest, the ideal of the priestly vocation in a young man. Similarly, for the religious - nuns and brothers - the foundation of their vocation was the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, just as it was for you, the laity.
What, then, precisely is a Christian? Essentially, a Christian is one who offers himself as a victim on the altar with Our Lord. That is what the Sacrament of Marriage is also: a symbol of Christ's union with His Church. Just as Christ offered His life for His Church, so also do the spouses offer their lives for their families and for each other. This union is a vivid symbol of what occurred at Calvary, and thus the spouses derive the strength and courage required for the sacrifice of their union from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass there can be no Catholic spirituality, no Christian life, and all that has been the life of the Church through the ages will simply wither and cease to exist. We, then, do have a vital requirement for the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and this is of fundamental importance to us as Catholics.
I do allow that in recent centuries perhaps our catechetics have placed more emphasis upon the Eucharist as sacrament, than upon the Eucharist as sacrifice. There has been great emphasis placed on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and for good reason, of course. We stage, for example, massive international Eucharistic Congresses throughout the Catholic world to provide the faithful with the opportunity to adore Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. And these Eucharistic Congresses were of unsurpassed splendor, living testimony of the profound belief of the faithful in the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Thus, while the Church has in recent centuries placed much emphasis upon the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist - the Eucharist as Sacrament - at the same time, perhaps unconsciously, the Eucharist as Sacrifice has to some extent been neglected. Let us come back to this idea of the Eucharist as Sacrifice, without losing sight of the Eucharist as Sacrament. I do think that today there ought to be a renewed emphasis on the Eucharist as Sacrifice because, after all, it is the Eucharist as Sacrifice, which is the source of the Eucharist as Sacrament. The Eucharist as Sacrament comes to us from the Sacrifice of the Cross. Without the Cross there would be no Sacrament of the Eucharist because the Sacrament is the Victim, and without the Sacrifice there is no Victim. And without the Victim there is no Real Presence, no participation, no communion by the faithful. In a word, when we receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist - Holy Communion - we are partaking of the Victim Who offered Himself on the Cross, and Who offers Himself in an unbloody manner daily on our altars for the forgiveness of sins. This, then, is the profound meaning of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist: the Blessed Sacrament is the fruit of this extraordinary tree which is the Cross because the Sacrament proceeds from the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.
We must therefore come back to this idea of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is essential to our salvation, and see in this Sacrifice precisely that element which has been the splendor of our civilization, and to understand why, today, this civilization - Western civilization, Christian civilization - is shaken to its very foundations, how the decline of our Christian civilization began when we came to express doubts about the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, when we began to attack, abolish and suppress the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This incredible phenomenon traces its origins to Berenger in the fourteenth century. Then in the sixteenth century, Luther boldly declared that the Mass is not a Sacrifice. Luther's attack, therefore, was directed at the very heart of the Church, to its most precious dogma. And in thus undermining the Sacrifice of the Mass, he destroyed the priesthood instituted by Christ, because without the Sacrifice, what need is there for a priesthood, what ideal does the priest strive for? The priest becomes merely a functionary designed from among the members of an assembly to offer worship, to perform a communion, to break bread.
That is what Luther achieved 450 years ago, and, as those familiar with the history of his reformation will recognize, that is precisely what is happening with respect to the transformation of the liturgy in our own time. Many of the elements of change are identical. During Luther's reformation the vernacular, German, was adopted and, needless to say, there was great rejoicing: the youth became enthusiastic, the laity could now understand, they could return now to what appeared to be a more evangelical church, they could worship now more meaningfully. The laity, in a word, had discovered a new relevance in the life of the Church. But the euphoria of juvenile enthusiasm soon gave way to disillusion: the priesthood began to disintegrate, priests and nuns left their monasteries, the convents were emptied and the religious married. How could this be so soon after the fervor and enthusiasm of the early years? The whole phenomenon was but a straw fire because the reformers had attacked the essential elements of Christ's Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
With the Sacrifice attacked, the traditional respect for the Eucharist did not remain long immune. The faithful began to receive Communion standing, then Communion was distributed in the hand, then the reformers began to openly deny the Real Presence, the Supreme Sacrifice, and to deny the priesthood, all that the Church had cherished most dearly.
The Protestant Reformation struck our civilization at its very roots, and it was just a matter of time before the tenets of Liberalism were added to those of the religious reformation. Thus, in the seventeenth century, Descartes brought forward the notion of truth being relative, subjective, within ourselves. That is, truth comes from our consciences, and not from outside of ourselves. Descartes refused the notion of truth, which comes from God and from Christ. And in the eighteenth century, Rousseau, carrying Descartes a step further, directed his attack at the moral law: man is good, his conscience is good. Therefore, it is his conscience, which should guide him, and not the law.
These three - Luther who attacked Church dogma and the Faith, Descartes who attacked the concept of objective truth, and Rousseau who attacked the moral law - were the precursors of the modern society in which we live today. Today, as we all recognize, faith, truth and the law are all relative and subject to the conscience of the individual. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what Liberalism is all about. Man has become free, liberated, adult, guided now exclusively by his own conscience and by his own will.
What in reality has all this liberation meant for society, for our civilization? It has brought about the destruction of the human person whose very being comes from God and from Our Lord Jesus Christ, whose entire spiritual life comes from Christ, from His law of love, from the gift of His grace which transforms and moves him to adhere to His law. If there is no absolute truth, but rather our own which we create for ourselves, there is no more God, no need for God, because we are sufficient unto ourselves. We become in effect our own gods and accordingly refuse a God, which transcends ourselves. It is not long before nature destroys itself in a sense.
In the wake of Rousseau came the subjectivist philosophers of the nineteenth century: Kant, Hegel and the others, all contributing and advancing the destruction of the Christian Faith. Little by little these ideas made their way until the principles of Liberalism virtually destroyed the notion of Christian society. Already by the end of the eighteenth century it had become imperative in France to be liberated from the restrictions of Christian law, of Catholic kings, of Catholic society, in a word, of God. That is why in France, bankrupt of God, the Goddess Reason was formally consecrated by the State.
The Church, of course, resisted these tendencies. For a century and a half - from about 1800 to about 1960 - the Popes spoke out, issued encyclicals, used every conceivable means to prevent the destruction of the social and moral order by these tendencies. But these ideas, which had their origins in the Protestant Reformation and the advent of Liberalism, made their way little by little, and society became contaminated, and the dikes which hitherto had kept men in an ordered state, burst. Finally, like the Jews before Pontius Pilate, the states declared, "We have no king but Caesar," and accordingly effected the separation of Church and State. They drove Jesus Christ from the courts, from the army, from the universities, from the schools. The crucifixes were withdrawn from public buildings, the clergy were relegated to their vestries, society was laicized.
Society had thus become free, free of God. There soon followed freedom of thought, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience. And now, a century and a half later, we find ourselves enslaved by pornography, enslaved by television and the other media of social communications, which have so thoroughly infused into our society the kind of freedom, which destroys morality, the family, and society itself.
For her part, until about 1960, the Church resolutely resisted Liberalism in all these forms. She continued to teach obedience and submission to Jesus Christ, to His Law, to His Sacrifice, to His Sacraments and to His grace. For it is there that we find truth, true freedom, freedom from the slavery of sin. Once free of sin, we become enslaved rather to saintliness.
We see to what brutal depths our society has been reduced. The catechisms, the Canadian catechism, is a perfect example of the process I have tried at some length to describe, to destroy, an entire catechism devoted to destruction. Catechism by its nature suggests a breaking with sin, but modern catechisms are directed towards breaking down tradition and social taboos, breaking the family, destroying the restraints, which have held our civilization together. These are the things your children are taught in catechism today. Do the Gospels teach us that we must destroy? On the contrary, the Gospels teach us rather that we are to forge bonds of charity, of love: love God, love your parents, love your neighbor. These are strong bonds, mandatory bonds. We are not free to love or not to love. We must love God, and our parents and society, to the extent, of course, that society is in accord with God' s law.
This concept to teach our children to destroy, to break is a criminal concept because such notions will accompany them throughout their lives: through their youth and later when, by a sort of dialectic which will continue to gnaw at them and will always oppose them to others and consume them with the imperative to be "free" in order to grow, in order to be "themselves." This is fraught with extremely serious consequences and we wonder now how we could even imagine such a system of catechism. The new catechetics are simply a natural long-term consequence of Liberalism.
And though our Popes opposed Liberalism and recognized it for what it is, today nevertheless one can safely affirm that Liberalism has overwhelmed the Church. It has permeated our culture, our society, our universities and our schools. No area remains immune, not even our families have been spared the poison of Liberalism. Our seminaries have been contaminated by ideas proposed by such men as Teilhard de Chardin, whereby truth is relative, evolving, personal. There is no longer an immutable truth, therefore no fixed dogma. And this, tragically, is what has come out of Vatican II. Gaudium et spes best illustrates this: at least two pages are devoted to, the idea of change, to the evolution of truth. Change is what "updating" is all about. Anyone who is a party to "updating" faces that as a premise: as a result of our new found mastery of nature, we must accept change in philosophy, in modes of expression and action, in the manner in which we conceive our religion, in the realization that the way ideas were understood in the past are no longer applicable today.
Thus, seminaries, for example, are told they must no longer proselytize, evangelize or convert non-Christians. They must, rather, engage in dialogue in order to direct their flocks toward self-discovery and the realization that their faith is, after all, as valid as our own. This, of course, is heresy, pure and simple, and has had the predictable effect of numbing in a very short time the Church's entire missionary spirit. It goes without saying that, having killed the missionary spirit, the priestly spirit itself will cease to exist.
These are the factors, then, which leave Catholics with no incentive for the religious life today. People no longer know what the religious state of life is. Recently the Archbishop of Cincinnati, reporting to the Roman Synod on the crisis of vocations to the priesthood, solemnly declared that the lack of vocations apparent in the Church today stems from the fact that the priest has lost his sense of identity. What do these incredible words mean? Simply that the priest does not know what he is. Since when does the priest not know who or what he is? After 2,000 years of having priests in the Catholic Church we suddenly no longer know what constitutes a priest! Why have we come to this? Because we have destroyed our altars by changing them into "tables," stripped them of their altar stones, which from the fourth century have harbored the relics of the martyrs. A sacrifice is traditionally offered upon a stone, a stone altar, but today there is no sacrifice, no stone, no relics. The Mass has become a meal. Relics signify that the martyrs had offered themselves as a sacrifice in union with Our Lord. You can understand just how grave it is to abolish these magnificent symbolisms, and to what extent all that is most sacred in the holy Catholic religion, is being tampered with. And all of this tampering penetrated the Church at the Second Vatican Council.
I am frequently criticized because I attack the Council. It is true that I am at variance with the Council because I realize that the liberal spirit is destroying the Church, the priesthood, the sacraments, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the catechism, Catholic universities and Catholic schools. And you yourselves are as firmly convinced as I am because you have the examples constantly before your eyes. Parents have come to prefer to send their children to non-Catholic schools, even to Protestant schools, because they are less subject there to perversion than in their own Catholic schools.
Is this not an incomprehensible scandal when we reflect on what Canada was twenty years ago at the proud invitation of Msgr. Cabana to visit his new seminary, finished in 1955, full of seminarians. This remained so until 1965. Today the seminary has been sold and there remains nothing of this work. What is happening in the Church the world over when seminaries like the one in Sherbrooke, not twenty years old, are disposed of in this way?
Recently I spoke with an Italian bishop who had just returned from a trip during which he had hoped to come into contact with priests anxious to maintain traditions of the Church to establish a common bond, to perhaps create an association of traditional priests in Italy. He had returned overwhelmed. Having visited nearly every diocese in Italy, he realized that seminaries are being sold everywhere, and that young priests are out and out Marxists. Though Italy has an average three times more priests than France, the seminaries are empty; Turin with a capacity for 300 has 80 seminarians from several neighboring dioceses. The Bishop of Casserta confided to me that his seminarians come back to him Modernists and refuse to obey him. What kind of diocese is he going to have in just a few years from now in the light of the state of the priesthood and the seminaries today?
In France there are approximately 100 new candidates who enter all the seminaries each year, for 100 dioceses. The only notable seminary left is at Issy-les-Moulinaux, near Paris, with 80 seminarians for 25 dioceses and four or five religious communities. And of these, how many will finish? And how many more are living in the hope that between now and their ordination Rome will have authorized a married clergy?
This situation, which took root at the Council, is vitally serious. The enthusiasm for liberation was evident throughout the Council. It expressed itself in the equivocal wording of the various schemas, through the idea of change for the sake of change, through the idea of the primacy of the individual conscience as opposed to established law, through the notion of freedom for all religions. This the Church has always regarded as contrary to her rights because, as she believes, she alone is Truth. And if a Catholic state places no obstacle to the spreading of heresy within its jurisdiction, then the state becomes a Protestant state in effect, with all its attendant errors, on marriage, for example, which leads to tolerance for divorce, contraception and abortion, all of which gently undermines Christian society, Catholic society. We recognize that it is precisely this, which has set the Church upon a course of full-scale self-destruction, which has become more and more obvious.
These, then, are the reasons why we are so attached to our traditions. This is why, in the face of the deluge, this universal destruction of the Holy Catholic Church, we affirm the will to preserve the Catholic Mass, the Catholic Sacraments, the Catholic catechism, our Catholic universities and our Catholic schools. We refuse to maintain liberal schools in which everything and anything goes. We insist upon Catholic schools in order that our children be raised as Catholics. We insist upon Catholic universities in order that our children not be perverted. We no longer dare send a young man or a young lady to a Catholic university.
We prefer to send them to a state university. Seminarians no longer know where to go. In seminaries today, seminarians come and go as they pleased, at any time of the day and night, go to daily Mass or stay away, as they please.
We are thus in a state of decomposition and we cannot accept this situation. This is why our resistance gives the impression that we are attempting to stand in the way of all this change. I have been requested to close my seminary at Econe. Why do I refuse to obey this order? Because I most emphatically do not wish my seminarians to become Protestants, because I do not wish my seminarians to become Modernists, because I do not wish my seminarians to lose their faith and their moral perspective. I am quite certain that were they to be released and sent to other seminaries they would lose their faith and their moral perspective. Accordingly, it appears to me that I have no choice but to resist this order.
I am asked how it is that I can refuse orders, which come from Rome. Indeed, these orders to come from Rome, but from which Rome? I believe in Eternal Rome, the Rome of the Sovereign Pontiffs, the Rome which dispenses the very life of the Church, the Rome which transmits the true Tradition of the Church. I am considered disobedient, but I am moved to ask why have those who issue orders which in themselves are blameworthy been given their authority. The Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the priests have been given their authority for the purpose of transmitting life, the spiritual life, the supernatural life, eternal life, just as parents and society as a whole have been given their authority to transmit and protect life. The word "authority" means "author," author of life. We are not authorized to transmit death; society is not permitted to pass laws, which authorize abortion, because abortion is death. In like manner, the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops and priests exist as such to transmit and sustain spiritual life. Unfortunately, it is apparent that many of them today no longer transmit or sustain life, but rather authorize spiritual abortion.
These, then, are the reasons why, in the face of an order to close my seminary, I refuse to obey. I believe that we all have a serious requirement for the type of priests who transmit the life of the soul. I am certain you do not wish to have priests who are apt to administer sacraments, which are invalid. From time to time I am asked to administer Confirmation which, of course, is irritating to local bishops who remind me that I have no right to confirm in their dioceses. Naturally, I recognize this, but I remind them in turn that they have no right to administer sacraments of doubtful validity to children whose parents want them to receive the sacramental grace. These parents have the right to be certain that their children are receiving the grace of Confirmation. This is, after all, a grave responsibility for parents. It is grace, which keeps the soul alive, and, to this end, I much prefer to see parents confident that their children have received the sacramental grace of Confirmation even when, by administering the sacrament in someone else's diocese, I am acting illicitly. I may at least rest easy in the knowledge that the children confirmed in the manner prescribed by the Church for centuries truly carry the sacramental grace within them, that the sacrament is truly valid.
With respect to sacraments of doubtful validity, today bishops rarely confirm: they delegate their vicars-general or other priests, and many of these change even the new authorized formulas. Because the particular sacramental grace of each sacrament has to be signified explicitly, and as many of these changes of working do not signify the sacrament in question, it follows that the sacrament is invalid. In other words, it is not permissible to toy with the formula of the sacraments, just as in the Sacrifice of the Mass we many not tamper with the wording of the consecration. It is necessary to perform as the Church has always intended.
All of this, therefore, is of utmost importance and it is also the reason why we must maintain our traditions, and fear neither difficulties nor obstructions. We are living in a time of veritable agony. We must be careful, of course, not to offer violent opposition to our bishops and to our priests who refuse to understand the grave dangers under which the Church labors today. But in following the Church of all time, we must also pray for our pastors. We are not inventing anything new. I have not innovated at my seminary at Econe.
Those who condemn me are condemning their own formation, which is absurd. In the face of these absurdities, I can only close my ears and my eyes, and continue to receive seminarians. In September [1975], I welcomed twenty-five new candidates at Econe, five at my new German-language seminary near Lake Constance in German Switzerland, and twelve at my new house at Armada, Michigan. Vocations are surely not wanting and I am quite certain that were we encouraged instead of harassed and struck down, I would have not three seminaries, but seminaries in every part of the world. Make no mistake: there are sufficient good, young, wiling men - good and holy vocations in every country.
We are bound, therefore, to pray that we recover one day an understanding of the way of the priesthood because Christian society cannot live without its priests. The Church without the priesthood is no longer the Church. It is for this reason essentially that I ask your fervent prayers for young priests. Pray also to the Blessed Virgin Mary, for she is the Mother of priests and the Mother of the priesthood. Pray for the graces of holy vocations, and for assistance with respect to Rome, that one-day Rome itself may be enlightened.
Rome, for me, has become a great mystery. What is happening in Rome? It is surely Rome that constitutes the most serious problem. To say such a thing is neither calumny nor detraction, for if the crisis in the Church has spread to every country in the world, it is only sensible to seek a common cause at its Seat. There is something distinctly abnormal and sinister about Rome today, the workings of grace are being obstructed in Rome, there are men in Rome who are under the ascendancy of Satan. How else could the Church be strangled, as it were, and troubled to such an extent? Though we may not readily understand the problem, one can feel it, sense the atmosphere of today's Rome. I am still frequently in Rome, and I have occasion to chat from time to time to priests of the different sacred congregations, the men who carry out the day-to-day affairs of the Curia. These men confide to me in private that Rome has become stifling, that a veritable terror reigns in the bureaus and the corridors of the Vatican, with always somebody listening, spying, ready to report, to criticize. Even the cardinals are not immune to the terror, to the veritable diabolical influence, which permeates every facet of Vatican life.
What has caused such a deterioration? Who are these sinister people? Are they hidden personalities, or are they clerics in important positions? Nobody seems to know, but what is absolutely certain is that this spirit permeates not only the Seat of the Catholic Church, but every one of us no matter how far we are from Rome.
The present state of Rome is just one more reason why we must not hesitate or fear to regroup.
In closing, I would wish to emphasize especially how important it is to remain united, and to avoid dissension at all costs. We are already so few who wish to hold onto our traditions, who understand, who have received the graces. There can be no question but that it is God's grace, which has allowed us to keep our holy traditions, the very traditions, which have produced the saints. It is vital, therefore, that we proceed as of one mind, that we labor together in order to better insure a strong defense.
You most assuredly have it within your power, through grace, to build up something solid, which will last, which will attract the others, something which will allow you to form your children. You will find it easier to provide catechists to help you in your tasks. You will find it easier to organize your own schools, administered by laymen and fully Catholic, teaching the true catechism, celebrating the traditional liturgy, forming your children as strong and perfect Christians. It is this sort of arrangement to which we must come in order to protect our holy religion and our souls, for, ultimately, to save our souls is all that matters.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-5B...n.jpeg&f=1]](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-5BVR_r8IIi8%2FWEQ9m5tPZaI%2FAAAAAAAAAPU%2FKCvsShx9yRYVQNQEsIZV61B3wvEPuNwhwCLcB%2Fs1600%2FSt.%252BJohn%252Bthe%252BBaptist%252Bin%252Bprison.jpeg&f=1)
![[Image: Christmas_Bavaria__810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Christmas_Bavaria__810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
