| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 284 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 282 Guest(s)
Bing, Google
|
|
|
| Jesuit parish creates new lay ministry to squirt hand sanitizer before Communion |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-01-2020, 09:09 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Spiritual]
- No Replies
|
 |
Jesuit parish creates new lay ‘ministry’ to squirt hand sanitizer before Communion
At St. Raphael the Archangel parish, the pastor, joined by hand-sanitizing 'ministers,' dons a face mask and a face shield to deliver Communion into parishioners' hands.
RALEIGH, North Carolina, December 1, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The Jesuit pastor of St. Raphael the Archangel parish in Raleigh, N.C. has recruited special “ministers” from among the lay faithful to assist him by sanitizing the hands of communicants prior to receiving the Eucharist in the hand.
Father Phil Hurley, S.J. has instituted a number of “Ministers of Hand Sanitizer,” who, following him around the church as he distributes Communion to the faithful, squeeze a dollop of sanitizer into the communicants’ hands before Fr. Hurley will offer them Communion, again into their hands. He does this while suited up in a face mask and a visor. The measures implemented by the pastor are supposedly an attempt to safeguard parishioners from the material threat of COVID-19, even while the innovations may pose a threat to spiritual devotion and reverence of the Eucharistic Lord.
The Jesuits USA East Province, who posted the above tweet, referred to the newly created “ministry” as an adaption to “the pandemic.” The idea of sanitizing people’s hands before Communion and priestly masking measures was the fruit of “months of planning by the church’s leadership to reopen for in-person services,” according to the parish’s pastoral associate for liturgy and music, Jeff Rice.
While St. Raphael parish might be unique in offering a new order of sanitizing “ministers,” the parish is far from alone in implementing regulations that are innovative and profane. Bishops and bishops’ conferences around the globe have been busy handing down proclamations denying the faithful Communion on the tongue and kneeling while demanding social distancing and the use of face masks.
A recent study from Denmark has concluded that wearing a face mask to stop the spread of COVID-19 is, in fact, ineffective. The study threw up some interesting and unexpected results, including that within the group which wore the mask “exactly as instructed,” as opposed to those who did so only “predominantly as instructed,” a greater percentage were infected. This is the exact opposite of what the legacy media have repeatedly reported to expect from “proper” use of face coverings.
Beside the debate over the effectiveness of face masks stands the much more controversial practice of mandating reception of Communion in the hand. Prominent figures in the Church, such as Raymond Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, have spoken publicly about the gravity of this matter. According to an instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship to the USCCB, “[t]he faithful are not to be obliged to adopt the practice of communion in the hand. Each one is free to communicate in one way or the other.” Clearly, then, mandating reception of Communion in the hand is a violation of Church norms regarding the Eucharist.
With the above having been said, Bishop Schneider goes farther, instructing the faithful on the worthiness of receiving Communion on the tongue and the profaneness of receiving in the hand. Not only is there mounting evidence for why Communion on the tongue is safer and more hygienic than hand reception, contrary to the instructions given by some bishops, but moreover, there is a much greater chance that, by receiving Communion in the hand, one will accidentally and unwittingly drop (or otherwise lose) particles of the precious body of Christ. In addition to this, the auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan warns of the opportunity for malefactors to commit sacrilege against the Eucharist by being more easily able to steal the host. The occasions of “irreverence” and “sacrilege” can be greatly mitigated by adopting the universal norm of distributing Communion onto the tongues of the faithful.
|
|
|
| December 1st - St. Eligius or Eloy |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-01-2020, 01:08 AM - Forum: December
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Saint Eligius or Eloy
Bishop of Noyon
(† 665)
Eligius, born near Limoges in the late sixth century, was in his childhood so skilled in manual arts, that his father decided to place him as an apprentice under a silversmith of Limoges. In a few years he had no rival in the art of metalworking. His piety and virtues recommended him still more highly than his talents; his frankness, prudence, gentleness and charity were admired by all.
The king of France, Clotaire II, heard of him, sent for him, and commanded him to make a golden throne adorned with jewels. For that purpose the king provided a large quantity of gold and precious stones, and with the materials given him Eligius made not one, but two magnificent thrones. Struck by the craftsman's rare honesty and ability, as well as by the overpowering beauty of his work, the king appointed him royal goldsmith for his kingdom, and kept him in his palace. Until then, the Saint had liked luxurious surroundings, but now, touched by a particular grace, he began to live in the midst of riches as a poor disciple of Jesus Christ. His greatest pleasure was to make beautiful reliquaries for the Saints. But best of all he loved the poor, and the treasures which passed from his hands into those of the indigent could scarcely be counted. When strangers asked to see him, they were told to go to a certain street and stop at the house in front of which a crowd of beggars was waiting; that would be his house. He would wash their feet, serve them with his own hands, take the last place at table, and eat only their leftovers. When Saint Eligius had no more money, he would give away his furnishings and his very cincture, his cloak and shoes.
The friendship of the Saint with King Dagobert, successor to Clotaire II, has become legendary. One day Eligius came to the king and said to him, My prince, I have come to ask a favor of you: give me the terrain of Solignac, that I may make a ladder by which you and I can both ascend to heaven. The king willingly consented, and the Saint built a monastery. Neither one became a monk, but Saint Eligius loved to visit the religious and spend a few days with them from time to time, to be edified by their regularity.
Saint Eligius was finally obliged to accept a nomination to the episcopal see of Noyon. His life as a bishop was the continuation of his good works. He possessed the gift of miracles; he cast out demons and cured the sick by a simple word or the touch of his hand. By a special gift of God, he found the bodies of Saints long honored, but whose burial places were unknown. It is he who found the sacred remains of Saint Quentin, the illustrious martyr, those of Saint Piat at Seclin, and of Saint Lucian at Beauvais; for all of these he himself made beautiful reliquaries. He died in 665, regretted by all.
|
|
|
|
| Canadian doctor: ‘Lockdowns are draconian…no basis in evidence-based med |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-30-2020, 06:22 PM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
Canadian doctor doubles down: ‘Lockdowns are draconian…no basis in evidence-based medicine’
'I take the Hippocratic Oath extremely seriously. The first line is do no harm, and that is what motivated my presentation'
Dr. Roger Hodkinson in an Oct. 2018 video
ALBERTA, Canada, November 30, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A Canadian doctor who caused a firestorm of controversy earlier this month after blasting government-imposed COVID-19 measures at a public city meeting in Alberta is not only doubling down on his comments but is going even further.
“I take the Hippocratic Oath extremely seriously. The first line is do no harm, and that is what motivated my presentation,” Dr. Roger Hodkinson told The Epoch Times in a Nov. 24 interview in reference to a Nov. 13 speech he made to Edmonton city councilors in which he called it the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public” that lockdowns and masks were being used in an attempt to contain the spread of COVID-19.
“If I see something going on that’s harmful, I feel as a physician that I’m obligated to stand up and say something,” he added before going on to call lockdowns that are spreading across Canada “draconian.”
Dr. Hodkinson, CEO and Medical Director of Western Medical Assessments, laid out his credentials at the beginning of his Nov. 13 presentation to city council.
“I’m a medical specialist in pathology which includes virology. I trained at Cambridge University in the U.K. I’m the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. I was previously an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine doing a lot of teaching. I was the chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada Examination Committee and Pathology in Ottawa, but more to the point I’m currently the chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling the COVID-19 test,” he said.
“The bottom line is simply this: There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.”
“There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus,” he said, adding: “This is not Ebola. It’s not SARS. It’s politics playing medicine and that’s a very dangerous game.”
Hodkinson called using masks to prevent the spread of the virus “utterly useless,” noting that “there is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever.”
“Paper masks and fabric masks are simply virtue-signaling. They’re not even worn effectively most of the time. It’s utterly ridiculous,” he said.
The doctor’s comments on the ineffectiveness of masks is backed by recent peer-reviewed research that found that wearing a face-mask did not have a significant effect on the spread of COVID-19.
Hodkinson told The Epoch Times that government measures — lockdowns, restrictions on private gatherings, mask mandates— to try to stop the spread of the virus, from which the vast majority of people infected with it recover, do more harm than good.
“All of this is draconian … first of all because they have no basis in evidence-based medicine, and secondly because of horrendous consequences of that action,” he said.
“We’re talking, of course, about an enormous number of businesses—ferocious, hardworking, entrepreneurial people who are seeing their dreams disappear. We’re talking about delayed cancer investigations and treatment. We’re talking about cancelled surgeries. We’re talking about suicides and drug addiction,” he added.
“The consequence of all these measures is, and has been, absolutely catastrophic.”
The doctor said that the position he now backs regarding COVID-19 aligns with the Great Barrington Declaration, signed by almost 50,000 medical practitioners and medical and public health scientists, who have raised “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies.”
“Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice,” the declaration states.
The declaration was authorized and signed in Great Barrington, Massachusetts on Oct. 4, by Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard University who is a biostatistician and epidemiologist with an expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, a professor at Oxford University who is an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor at Stanford University Medical School who is a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert who focuses on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
Hodkinson said that his position on COVID-19 has resulted in an inordinate amount of negative attention where many have challenged his statements and even questioned his credentials. The doctor said in a Nov. 29 interview with Anna Brees that he has even received “death threats.” He added that nothing was going to stop him from telling the truth about COVID-19.
Social media has cracked down on those who attempted to share the doctor’s message online as well as news agencies that were attempting to report on his words.
On Nov. 30, Youtube removed from LifeSite’s channel a video of the doctor’s speech and then slapped LifeSite with a penalty of not being able to upload videos for a week and issued the first of three strikes. If LifeSite commits two more offenses that result in strikes, it will lose its YouTube channel permanently. The video can be found on LifeSite’s Rumble account here.
Some Canadians have decided to resist the lockdowns that are spreading across the country in reaction to the so-called second wave of COVID-19. Last week an Ontario restaurant owner defied the Ford government lockdown order and kept his Adamson BBQ diner open. Police showed up and arrested Adam Skelly, taking him away in handcuffs. On that same day, Ontario Independent Member of Provincial Parliament Randy Hillier organized and attended an anti-lockdown protest outside the provincial legislature that was attended by an estimated 700 people. Police charged Hillier for organizing the event under the Reopening Ontario Act. He could face a fine of up to $100,000 and a year in jail.
|
|
|
|
| News Reporters Stalk Christians Worshipping at Church to Enforce COVID Mandates |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-30-2020, 06:17 PM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Spiritual]
- No Replies
|
|
DYSTOPIAN: News Reporters Stalk Christians Worshipping at Church to Enforce COVID Mandates
Doesn’t get much more Orwellian than this!
Big League Politics | Nov 30, 2020
A reporter with the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) posted a video of herself stalking Christian church attendees on Sunday in order to enforce COVID-19 mandates against the followers of Jesus Christ.
Georgina Smyth, an Australian reporter working for BBC News Vancouver, stalked over 60 Christians, who she claims are in violation of an edict banning church gatherings.
“I counted more than 60 people inside this church in Chilliwack, a bold breach of PHO orders to suspend gatherings due to record high Covid cases. Another church nearby was visited by RCMP. Unfortunately both religious leaders decline to speak with us on camera,” Smyth wrote in her tweet.
The video can be seen here:
Quote:I counted more than 60 people inside this church in Chilliwack, a bold breach of PHO orders to suspend gatherings due to record high Covid cases. Another church nearby was visited by RCMP. Unfortunately both religious leaders decline to speak with us on camera. @cbcnewsbc pic.twitter.com/076COasRbX
— GeorginaSmyth (@GeorgieSmyth) November 29, 2020
A different church in the Canadian province of British Columbia was fined $2,300 for holding illegal worship services over the weekend.
“This is probably ground zero for the churches standing up. There is a movement afoot to ensure that more churches also start to defy Bonnie Henry’s orders.” said Kari Simpson, who is protesting the government persecution of Christians.
Simpson is up in arms about Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry’s decision to ban church gatherings but keep liquor stores open throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. These rules and regulations make no sense, and the public is slowly becoming enraged as a result.
Big League Politics has reported on the war against Christianity in Canada, which predates the COVID-19 pandemic by a wide margin:
Quote:A Christian pastor named David Lynn was arrested and charged with disturbing the peace with “derogatory comments” on Tuesday for preaching the word of God on a street corner at Church-Wellesley Village in Toronto, ON.
After the disciple of Christ was harassed by a group of unruly protesters, he was hauled off in handcuffs by law enforcement because preaching the Gospel was considered to be a criminal violation.
The LGBT mob cheered on as the man was dragged away in handcuffs, a sign of things to come if their perverse agenda continues unabated…
“It’s unfortunate that I am subject to this kind of discrimination and bullying and marginalization simply for saying God loves you, there is hope for you, I accept you and tolerate you. I shouldn’t be in this position, I didn’t do anything illegal,” Lynn said following his arrest. He is now out on bond.
Lynn was shown on the video saying frequently that “God is love,” and that he doesn’t hate anyone. This didn’t stop the police from apprehending him anyway.
“I didn’t know this was the start of the pride month…I didn’t say anything specific to the LGBTQ community, it’s all on live stream,” he said to reporters.
Lynn believes that the LGBT protesters and other hostile anti-Christians throughout his country want him to “stay in the closet” about his Christian beliefs. His arrest will send a chilling effect to others who want to preach the word of Christ in the liberal-dominated country.
“It looked as though they had an event waiting for me, and they had some form of hatred against me,” Lynn said.
Lynn is now banned from being anywhere near the areas of Bloor Street, Yonge Street, Carlton Street and Jarvis Street on conditions of his bond. He is also banned from being near any Pride event, as he is now a second-class citizen in globalist-occupied Canada.
Meanwhile, the legislature is working to expand laws against free speech, with the “Prohibiting Hate-Promoting Demonstrations at Queen’s Park Act, 2019,” being considered by Ontario lawmakers. It would ban any demonstration, rally or other activity that is deemed hateful by the government from being permissible on legislative grounds. If you don’t think that will apply to Christian speech, just ask David Lynn.
The war on Christianity is a massive part of the globalist agenda. After they have criminalized the truth of Jesus Christ in Canada, they will set their sights on the United States.
|
|
|
|
| Method of Hearing Mass Spiritually for the Absent |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 02:49 PM - Forum: When there is No Priest
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus - March 1981
METHOD OF HEARING MASS SPIRITUALLY FOR THE ABSENT
Those who sorely miss attendance at daily Mass during Lent, and especially those who do not even have Holy Mass available to them on Sundays and Holydays, may derive great spiritual benefits from the following devotion, taken verbatim from a pre-Vatican II missal.
It often happens that Christians from being at a distance from a church, from illness, or from other unavoidable impediments, may be unable to hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation. Causes may excuse bodily presence, but do not dispense us from uniting ourselves in spirit to those who actually enjoy the happiness of being in God's holy temple.
The Sundays and feasts are instituted by the Church, that we many render unto God, in a solemn form of divine institution, that worship which we owe Him every moment of our lives. This worship is the Mass; and it is offered for us even when we are not actually present. But to enjoy the benefits which it procures, we must, by a spiritual Communion, become partakers of the altar from which we are temporarily banished. Excite a desire of visiting the House of God and, choosing a proper time, let the whole family kneel before a crucifix, a statue of the Blessed Virgin, or a pious picture. Then, transporting themselves in spirit before the altar where Mass is being celebrated, let them endeavor to follow the service there performed.
FORM OF MAKING A GOOD INTENTION BEFORE HOLY MASS.
(TO BE USED WHEN ONE IS HINDERED FROM GOING TO CHURCH.)
I believe, Lord Jesus, that in the Last Supper Thou didst offer up a true Sacrifice; I believe it because Thou hast made it known to us through the Catholic Church, which from Apostolic times has constantly taught the same to us. Since Thou didst command the Apostles, and the priests ordained by them, to do the same till the end of time, I therefore offer to Thee, with the priest, this Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (which I believe to be one with that offered on Mount Calvary) to Thy honor and glory, in acknowledgment of my most bounden service, in thanksgiving for the innumerable benefits which Thou has conferred upon me and upon the whole world, in satisfaction for my sins and the sins of all mankind, and for obtaining the grace of perfect contrition for my sins. I also offer to Thee this Holy Mass for my friends and benefactors, for those for whom I am bound, and for whom Thou wilt me to pray. I also offer it for my enemies, that they may be converted, for all the faithful departed, particularly for my parents and relatives, and for the welfare of all Christendom.
PRAYERS DURING THE TIME OF DIVINE SERVICE.
(FOR THOSE WHO ARE HINDERED FROM ATTENDING HOLY MASS.)
I. Heartfelt desire to participate in the Holy Sacrifice.
Most Holy Trinity, God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and almighty Source of all things; my best Father, my merciful Redeemer, the Fountain of my sanctification and happiness, I, Thy most unworthy creature, venture to appear before Thee, to show to Thee, my true God and Creator, all honor, adoration, and trustful submission; to thank Thee for the innumerable benefits which I have received from Thee, to praise Thee for Thy glory (for I am created for Thy praise); to implore Thy mercies, and to appease Thy justice, because I have so often and so grievously sinned against Thee. All this I cannot do in a worthier and more perfect manner than by hearing, with faith and devotion, Holy Mass. For in that Holy Sacrifice is offered to Thee the most sublime Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, the most efficacious Sacrifice of supplication and propitiation, the most worthy Sacrifice of salvation for the living and dead. But because I cannot this day be present bodily at Holy Mass, I will, at least in spirit, place myself before the altar where Jesus Christ, in an unbloody manner, offers Himself, O Heavenly Father, to Thee. With this glorious Sacrifice I unite my present prayer; I fervently desire, united with the Son of God, in the strongest manner to praise, love, supplicate Thee, O Heavenly Father, to repair all the wrong and shame that I have wrought, and completely to accomplish all that can be accomplished by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To this end give me Thy divine grace, and grant that I may perform all this with sincere devotion. Amen.
II. Contrition for sins, with faith and confidence in Jesus Christ, and an offering up of His precious merits.
Holy Father, I confess with sorrow that I have seldom served Thee with an undivided heart, but rather have often offended Thee, and by my slothfulness and neglect have brought upon myself infinitely great guilt before Thee. I therefore take refuge in the merits of Thy Beloved Son, now present upon the altar, Who so freely commends and imparts to us His grace and favor. In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Jesus offers to Thee, for me, the highest veneration and love, the most perfect praise, the most hearty thanksgiving, and the most kind expiation. For the perfect forgiveness of sins, O Heavenly Father, I offer up to Thee the whole suffering and death of Jesus Christ, which are now, in an unbloody manner, renewed upon the altar. O most benign Father, Thy Son hast suffered and died even for me, a poor sinner. With thankful love I bring before Thee, as a precious and pleasing offering, the infinite merits of His suffering and death. I firmly trust that, on account of this inestimable sacrifice of Thy Son, Thou wilt not regard my guilt, and that Thou wilt increase in me Thy graces. Amen.
O Father of mercies, and God of all consolation, to Thee I turn for help and grace. Graciously look upon my misery and wretchedness, and let my supplications come before Thee. That I may the more surely be heard by Thee, I appear before the throne of Thy grace, which for our salvation, is set up in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where the innocent Lamb of God is mysteriously offered up to Thee, Holy Father, Almighty God, for the remission of our sins. Regard, I beseech Thee, the innocence of this holy Sacrifice, and for the sake thereof extend to my Thy mercy.
III. Adoration of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, under appearances of Bread and Wine.
O most holy Jesus, before Thee the heavenly choirs kneel and adore; with them I lift my voice and cry: Holy, holy, holy, art Thou, O Lord of Hosts. Heaven and earth are of full of Thy glory. Thou art present, O Jesus, under the appearances of bread and wine. Hear, O hear my prayer! I strike my breast and confess my unworthiness; but with firm confidence I implore Thee, O Jesus, be merciful to me! O most benign Jesus, forgive me my sins! O holy Blood, wash me from my sins! O precious Blood of Jesus, rich in grace, cry out to heaven for mercy upon me! Most holy God, receive this precious Blood, together with the love through which it was shed; receive it as an offering of my love and thankfulness, for the greatest glory of Thy Name; for the forgiveness of my sins; in satisfaction of the punishments which I have deserved; for the washing away of the stains of my guilt, as reparation for all my neglects, and and amendment for all the sins which I have committed through ignorance or frailty; receive it also as a sacrifice for the consolation of the afflicted; for the conversion of sinners; for the recovery of the sick and suffering; for the strengthening of those who draw near to death; for the refreshment, purification, and deliverance of souls of the departed in purgatory. Amen.
IV. Unshaken Confidence in Jesus Christ.
To Thee, O most benign Jesus, I lift up my eyes and my heart. Oh, turn upon me Thy gracious countenance, and Thy true love. Behold, O Lord, my manifest need, and the great danger of my soul. Receive me, O Thou Who art my only true mediator and helper! Be Thou, through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, my salvation, and obtain for me the entire remission of my sins. Oh, represent to Thy Father how cruelly Thou wast scourged, crowned, crucified and put to death for us, and thereby reconcile with the strict justice of God me, a miserable sinner.
Our Father . . . Hail Mary . . .
V. He who asks in the Name of Jesus shall receive.
O Lamb of God, Who didst suffer for us, miserable sinners, have mercy upon me, and offer up to the Father Thy Passion for the forgiveness of my sins! O Lamb of God, Who didst die for us, miserable sinners, have mercy upon me, and offer up to God Thy death in satisfaction for my sins! O Lamb of God, Who didst sacrifice Thyself for us, miserable sinners, have mercy upon me, and offer up Thy holy Blood tothe Father for the cleansing of my soul!
Heavenly Father, I offer up to Thee this precious and most worthy oblation. My sins are more in number than the hairs of my head, but, O just and merciful God, lay this precious offering in the one scale and my sins in the other, and that will far outweigh my guilt. O merciful, O holy God, give me Thy blessing before I end my prayer, and through this blessing let me obtain grace at once to begin to amend my life, and to renounce whatever is sinful and displeasing to Thee. Support me in my weakness; strengthen me when temptations assail me; and let me never forget that Thou art near me.
O precious day! but perhaps the last of my life! O happy day! if it shall make me better! Holy Mother of God, Mary, holy Angels and friends of God, pray for me and lead me in the way of truth. O God, grant Thy love to the living, and Thy peace to the dead. Amen.
ACT OF UNION WITH THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, WHEN WE CANNOT ASSIST AT IT.
As I cannot this day enjoy the happiness of assisting at the holy Mysteries, O my God! I transport myself in spirit to the foot of Thine altar; I unite with the Church, which, by the hands of the priest, offers Thee Thine adorable Son; I offer myself with Him, by Him, and in His Name. I adore, I praise, and I thank Thee, imploring Thy mercy, invoking Thine assistance, and presenting Thee the homage I owe Thee as my Creator, the love due to Thee as my Savior. Apply to my soul, I beseech Thee, O merciful Jesus, Thine infinite merits; apply them also to those for whom I particularly wish to pray. I desire to communicate spiritually, that Thy Blood may purify, Thy Flesh strengthen, and Thy Spirit sanctify me. May I never forget that Thou, my Divine Redeemer, hast died for me; my I die to all that is not Thee, that hereafter I may live eternally with Thee. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hewko - Regarding Mass Attendance in these Times of Apostasy |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 02:33 PM - Forum: When there is No Priest
- Replies (1)
|
|
This was originally posted by the member Deus Vult on the 'Archived' Catacombs:
Quote:The first half of this video summarizes the position of by Archbp. Lefebvre regarding Mass attendance as explained by him.
The second half gives examples of Catholics in history who held firm to the principles of the Catholic Church teachings and did not compromise on the Faith.
|
|
|
|
| The Power of Prayer: Training in Prayer for the Laity |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 01:42 PM - Forum: When there is No Priest
- No Replies
|
|
Originally posted by the member Hildegard on the 'Archived' Catacombs:
J.M.J.
THE POWER OF PRAYER
Importance of a Training in Prayer for the Laity by Rev. Richard Graef, CS.Sp.
Part One of the Power of Prayer Series:
Prayer is perhaps one of the most important elements of religious practice. It can substitute for the sacraments (in some cases absolutely), even though in God’s ordinary providence these be necessary for eternal salvation. But nothing else can supply the place of prayer. Hence one of the chief tasks of religious education is training in prayer. And yet no duty is perhaps more casually undertaken than just this. In many cases we Catholics are acquainted with vocal prayer only, and this in set texts and formulas. We are fully acquainted with prayer of petition; we have frequently heard of the prayer of praise, of glorification, of thanks, but scarcely anything of mental prayer. Many, indeed, are in the like case with the new converts in Ephesus mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles: “Paul found certain disciples, and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost” (Acts 19:1). They had not received Him and they had never heard of Him. Similarly, many of the faithful can say: we have not practiced mental prayer, we never even heard of it. Without mental prayer there can be no interior life. Now all Christians are assuredly called to live such a life and, as a consequence, to foster it. And yet many of the laity hold that such an obligation binds priests and religious only, not themselves. Is it a wonder, then, that the spiritual life of many followers of Christ is so sickly and so superficial? Our religious training is almost wholly confined to instruction on the sacraments; they alone are kept in view. Adults receive a thorough instruction on these before receiving baptism. We are familiar with instruction for First Confession, First Holy Communion and Confirmation. When at all possible, instruction is given also to engaged and married couples. We need not mention the long training which candidates for the priesthood receive before they are ordained.
Instruction with regard to the sacraments is obviously necessary; but it is in fact an instruction which points to the priest. It leads to a certain lack of self-reliance or independence in religious matters. The sacraments are more or less dependent on the priest. BUT WHAT IF THERE ARE NO PRIESTS? That contingency has now become something to be reckoned with. As a consequence church and tabernacles are empty, and the altar has no significance. If the spiritual life of the faithful is made entirely dependent on priests or sacraments and these outer supports are suddenly withdrawn, then there is great danger of a religious collapse on the part of many. People have to be Catholics and remain Catholics even when there are no priests or sacraments; they have to be Catholics not merely in Catholic but in pagan, even hostile surroundings.
Now the person who does not lead an inner life of prayer is practically totally dependent on the help of priest and sacraments, while he who knows how to pray well can for a time do without them and survive a period of emergency or persecution. He knows his way to God; he can keep in constant touch with Him and draw on Him for help. But where will people get help if they know not how to pray and if there are no priests and sacraments at their disposal? In such cases, as experience unfortunately shows, that is the end of religious practice as far as they are concerned, whereas we need not be too anxious about those who can pray properly.
Important and necessary as is a training for reception of the sacraments, a training in prayer is still more important. Here too there is question of doing the one and not omitting the other. It is essential that a proper training in prayer be combined with instruction on the sacraments, not only because prayer can substitute for the sacraments in case of necessity, but also because the sacraments, like the spiritual life as a whole, can properly develop only when based on a solid foundation of prayer. Perhaps it is that the priest’s role is unduly emphasized, and, as a result, his responsibilities and his personal activity loom excessively large. He is minister and dispenser of the mysteries of God (1 Cor.4:1); he distributes sacramental grace to the faithful under his care; he instructs and teaches them; he
places his services at their disposal; he mediates for them. That is his task. But
it is the essential task of the faithful to exploit and make full use of the graces thus distributed.
Basically, each one is the custodian of his own soul. The priest, the minister of Christ, can only reach to a person’s mind and understanding. But the deciding factor in the spiritual life is not the mind but the heart. Whether or not the heart is touched and inflamed depends on the Holy Ghost and the individual soul in the first place, and not on the priest. Priests have as a rule a good deal of work, hard work, to face; but in many cases their efforts are unavailing, the reason being that the impression prevails that they have to do all the work and that success depends on themselves. In fact, however, the priest is only the “friend of the Bridegroom” (John 3:29); he can but introduce souls to the Bridegroom; the final decision rests with those so introduced, and depends above all else on their prayer.
Hence pastors of souls must take pains in the matter of a proper training in prayer.
If only the faithful knew how to pray then the priest’s labour in planting and watering would not fail in the desired increase (1 Cor. 3:7). If his hearers laid the matter to heart (Is. 57:1) God’s words would blaze within as a burning fire (Jer. 20:9)
Where lies the responsibility for training in prayer? First and foremost with the family, the home, and more particularly with the mother. She promotes devotion in the house. Nothing is more disastrous than a failure in the home, especially in the domain of religion. Neglect here can scarcely ever be made good; preachers and catechists, even the best equipped, will scarcely succeed. Hence due attention to young mothers to see they do justice to their consecrated duty in the home would seem to be the most important duty of a pastor. If we have the mothers we have the families too; we have the young people; we have, in consequence, future generations.
If we lose the pious influence over the family then we lose everything. No association, no regimentation, will be effective in the long run.
In the school, we can usually do little more than teach the children their catechism, just as we teach them their poetry. Whether the art of praying can be taught at school, along with the background that makes their prayers real prayer -- that is the great question. It may be that prayer is only learnt in a religious atmosphere of silence and calm such as is found in the quiet of home, quiet cultivated and maintained by the mother for herself and her children. Hence first beginnings in the habit of prayer are made most effectively, if partly unconsciously, at a mother’s knee. At school, in church, where there is question of a large number of children this devout atmosphere of prayer can scarcely be created. And even if in school and church children could be taught how to pray, little would be gained if the home fails to cooperate.
If prayerfulness is missing from the home, if no family prayers are said, no prayers morning or night or at meals; if the parents never say their prayers, never get the children to say theirs – then, despite all that is done by teacher or priest, no prayerful spirit will be developed. And if such a spirit of prayer is not fostered in the home then the children forget even the Our Father and the Hail Mary, just as they forget the poems they learnt by heart. What results can we expect if the family breaks down here? If children from Catholic circles and Catholic families come to school unable to make the sign of the cross or say their Glory be to the Father or their Hail Mary correctly, what hopes can we entertain for the future when Catholic parents adopt an attitude of utter irresponsibility in this matter, saying perhaps to themselves: no need for us to teach our children to pray; our priest is there for that; he is paid for that!
How comes it that so many of our young people abandon to all intents and purposes the practice of their religion as soon as they leave school? They are products of a Catholic upbringing, heirs to century-long Catholic traditions; they have had the benefit of religious instruction for several hours a week for eight full years in Catholic schools, and later in vocational schools. Instead of becoming staunch Catholics, rooted in their attachment to the Church and in the practice of the faith, they have outgrown both. A contrast to what we find in Mission lands where two or three years of catechetical instruction suffice to make quite passable Christians out of people with pagan traditions and living in completely pagan surroundings.
REFERENCE
Graef, Rev. Richard. (1961) The Power of Prayer. London, B. Oates and Washbourne.
|
|
|
|
| Catholic History Conferences by Michael Davies |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 12:16 PM - Forum: Resources Online
- Replies (3)
|
|
Books and conferences by Michael Davies used to be carried in SSPX bookstores for many years before he left the SSPX in 1988. His personal beliefs aside, his lectures and books on Catholic history are excellent.
On the French Revolution
The Background
The Reign of Terror
The Rising of the Vendée
|
|
|
|
| November 30th |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 09:55 AM - Forum: November
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Andrew
Apostle
(† First century)
Patron of fishermen, Russia and Scotland
Saint Andrew was one of the fishermen of Bethsaida, and was the brother of Saint Peter. He became a disciple of Saint John the Baptist. When called himself by Christ on the banks of the Jordan, his first thought was to go in search of his brother, and he said to Peter, We have found the Messiah! and brought him to Jesus.
It was Saint Andrew who, when Christ wished to feed the five thousand in the desert, pointed out a little lad with five loaves and a few fishes. After Pentecost, Saint Andrew went forth upon his mission to plant the Faith in Scythia and Greece and, at the end of years of toil, to win a martyr's crown at Patrae in Achaia. When Saint Andrew first caught sight of the gibbet on which he was to die, he greeted the precious wood with joy. O good cross! he cried, made beautiful by the limbs of Christ, so long desired, now so happily found! Receive me into thy arms and present me to my Master, that He who redeemed me through thee may now accept me from thee! After suffering a cruel scourging he was left, bound by cords, to die upon this diagonal cross. For two whole days the martyr remained hanging on it, alive, preaching with outstretched arms from this chair of truth, to all who came near, and entreating them not to hinder his passion.
|
|
|
|
| November 29th |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 09:41 AM - Forum: November
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Saturninus
Bishop and Martyr
(†ca. 70 A.D.)
Saint Saturninus was a contemporary and a disciple of Our Lord Jesus Christ; he came to Palestine from Greece, attracted by the reputation of Saint John the Baptist, which had echoed even to the northern Mediterranean region. He then followed our Saviour, heard His teaching, and was a witness to many of His miracles. He was present in the Cenacle when the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost upon the Mother of Christ, the Apostles and Disciples assembled in the number of 120. (Acts of the Apostles 1:15) He departed to teach Christianity under Saint Peter's authority, evangelizing the lands east of Palestine, and going as far as the region of the Persians and Medes and their neighboring provinces. He cured the sick, the lepers, and the paralytics and delivered souls from the demons; and before he left, he gave written instructions to the new Christians concerning what they should believe and practice.
When Saint Saturninus went with Saint Peter to Rome, the Apostle was inspired to send out a number of fervent evangelists to the West, to dissipate by the light of Christ the darkness in which those regions were still plunged. Saturninus was directed to go to what is now southern France, to Toulouse in particular. Saint Peter consecrated him a bishop, that he might form and ordain native priests for the future Christian churches of Gaul. He was given for his companion Papulus, later to become Saint Papulus the Martyr.
The two companions acquired at Nimes an ardent assistant in the person of Honestus. At Carcassonne, when the three announced Christ they were thrown into a prison, where they suffered from hunger; but an Angel was sent by the Lord to deliver them, and they continued on their way to Toulouse, preaching the doctrine and the name of Christ publicly. At this large and opulent city, where idolatry was entrenched, the idols became mute when the missionaries arrived. This caused great astonishment, and the cause of the silence was sought. Saint Saturninus in the meantime was working miracles which produced a strong impression on the witnesses; among them, the cure of a woman with advanced leprosy. The sign of the cross which he made over crowds often cured many sick persons at the same time, and he then baptized those who showed themselves ready for the sacrament. For a time he left his two disciples there and continued on elsewhere, preaching in the cities of what are now Auch and Eauze. A Spaniard heard of him and crossed the Pyrenees to hear him; this man, by the name of Paternus, advanced so rapidly on the paths of virtue that Saint Saturninus ordained him and then established him bishop of Eauze. He himself returned to Toulouse and sent Honestus to Spain to preach. When the latter returned to ask him to come with him to Spain, he left his disciple Papulus in charge for a time at Toulouse.
At Pampeluna his preaching brought thousands to the truth, delivering these former idolaters from the heavy yoke of the ancient enemy. While he continued his apostolic labors elsewhere, in Toulouse a persecution broke out against Papulus, and the faithful Christian obtained the crown of martyrdom by a violent death. At once Saint Saturnin returned to Toulouse, when he learned of it.
The idols again became mute. One day a great multitude was gathered near a pagan altar, where a bull stood ready for the sacrifice. A man in the crowd pointed out Saturninus, who was passing by, as the cause of the silence. There is the one who preaches everywhere that our temples must be torn down, and who dares to call our gods devils! It is his presence that imposes silence on our oracles! He was chained and dragged to the summit of the capitol, situated on a high hill, and commanded to offer sacrifice to the idols and cease to preach Jesus Christ. An Angel appeared to him to fortify him, and the terrible flagellation he endured could not alter his firmness. I know only one God, the only true one; to Him alone I will offer sacrifice on the altar of my heart... How can I fear gods who you yourselves say are afraid of me? He was tied by a rope to the bull, which was driven down the stairs leading to the capitol. His skull was broken, and the Saint entered into the beatitude of the unceasing vision of God. His body was taken up and buried by two devout young women. Tradition conserved the memory of the place of his burial, where later a church was built
|
|
|
|
| November 28th |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 09:30 AM - Forum: November
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Catherine Labouré
Virgin, Visionary, Received the Miraculous Medal
(1806-1876)
Saint Catherine Zoé Labouré was born in a small village of France in 1806, the daughter of a well-to-do farmer who had at one time wanted to become a priest, and his very Christian wife. Catherine, the ninth of the eleven living children, lost her mother when she was only nine years old and had to abandon school to go to live with an aunt, accompanied by her younger sister. Two years later she was recalled to take charge of the household, because the older children had all left, one to become a Sister of Saint Vincent de Paul, the others to marry or seek a living elsewhere.
She made a vow of virginity when still very young, desiring to imitate the Holy Virgin, to whom she had confided herself when her mother died. She longed to see Her, and she prayed, in her simplicity, for that grace. She spent as many hours as possible in the Chapel of the Virgin in the village church, without, however, neglecting the work of the household. She talked to Our Lady as to a veritable mother, and indeed the Mother of Christ and ours would prove Herself to be such. Catherine wished to become a nun, without having opted for any particular community; but one day she saw a venerable priest in a dream, saying Mass in her little village church. He turned to her afterwards and made a sign for her to come forward, but in her dream she retreated, walking backwards, unable to take her gaze from his face. He said to her: Now you flee me, but later you will be happy to come to me; God has plans for you. The dream was realized and, as a postulant in the Community of Saint Vincent de Paul, she assisted at the translation of his relics to a nearby church of Paris. She had indeed recognized his picture one day in one of the convents of the Sisters of Charity, and obtained her father's consent to enter that Congregation when her younger sister was old enough to replace her at home.
Catherine's interior life was alimented by the visions she frequently had of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, where once she saw Him as Christ the King. And the designs of God for this humble novice began to be fulfilled, after Our Lady appeared to her in July of 1830, and confided to her the mission of having a Medal struck according to the living picture she saw one night, when a little Angel led her to the convent Chapel, and there she knelt at the Virgin's feet to hear the words which would be the motivating force of her forty-six years of religious life.
Once more — insofar as we know — she would see the Blessed Mother, on November 27th of the same year, when one afternoon while at prayer with her Sisters, she beheld Her to one side of the chapel, Her feet poised on a globe, on which was prostrate a greenish serpent; the hands of the Virgin were holding a golden globe at the level of the heart, as though offering it to God, said Catherine later, in an attitude of supplication, Her eyes sometimes raised to heaven, sometimes looking down at the earth, and Her lips murmuring a prayer for the entire world. The face of the Virgin was of incomparable, indescribable beauty, with a pleading expression which plunged the Sister into ravishment, while she listened to Her prayers. The Immaculate Virgin, after having offered to God Her Compassion with the suffering Christ, prayed for all men and for each one in particular; she prayed for this poor world, that God might take pity on its ignorance, its weakness and faults, and that by pardoning He would hold back the arm of Divine Justice, raised to strike. She prayed the Lord to give peace to the universe.
For many years Catherine kept her secrets from all save her confessor, Father Aladel, priest of the Mission of Saint Vincent, who, wanting to be able to continue with his penitent, saw to it that she was not sent far from Paris, after he had fulfilled the first mission of having the Medal struck. He died, however, before having the statue made according to this second vision, as Our Lady desired. Catherine suffered much from her inability to accomplish the second part of her mission. When she finally confided this second desire of Our Lady to her Sister Superior, a statue of Our Lady, Queen of the World and Mediatrix of all Graces, was made for two Chapels of the nuns.
Saint Catherine died in 1876, after spending her life in the domestic and agricultural duties associated with the kitchen and garden, and in general caring for the elderly of the Hospice of Enghien at Reuilly, only about three miles southeast of Paris. Among her writings recounting the apparitions, we read: Oh, how beautiful it will be to hear it said: Mary is Queen of the universe. That will be a time of peace, joy and happiness which will be long... She will be borne like a banner and will make a tour of the world. The Virgin foretold that this time would come only after the entire world will be in sadness... Afterwards, peace.
|
|
|
|
| November 27th |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 09:17 AM - Forum: November
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Miraculous Medal
(1830)
The Miraculous Medal comes directly from the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and our Mother; it is a gift from heaven which has never ceased to effect marvels of grace throughout the entire world. This medal is a very simple and very efficacious means to benefit from the protection of Mary in all our necessities, both spiritual and temporal.
On November 27, 1830, in a residence of the Daughters of Charity, at the Chapel of the Rue du Bac in Paris, the Most Blessed Virgin appeared to Saint Catherine Labouré (1806-1876) for the second time. On this day the Queen of Heaven was seen with a globe under Her feet and holding in Her hands, at the level of the heart, another smaller globe, which She seemed to be offering to Our Lord in a gesture of supplication. Suddenly, Her fingers were covered with rings and beautiful jewels; the rays from these streamed in all directions...
The Blessed Virgin looked down on the humble novice who was contemplating Her. Behold, She said, the symbol of the graces that I bestow on those who ask Me for them. The jewels which remain in the shadows symbolize the graces that one forgets to ask Me for, the Virgin continued. And Catherine Labouré wrote later, She made me understand how generous She is towards persons who pray to Her, how many graces She grants those who ask Her for them, and what joy She has to bestow them! Then there formed around the Mother of God an oval background on which was written in gold letters:
O Mary, conceived without sin,
pray for us who have recourse to Thee.
In a gesture which invited recourse and confidence, the hands of Mary descended and were extended as we see them represented on the medal.
Sister Catherine Labouré beheld this vision with happiness. A voice said to her: Have a medal struck on this model; the persons who will wear it will receive great graces, especially if they wear it around the neck. These graces will be abundant for those who wear it with confidence. The picture seemed to turn around, and Sister Catherine saw, on its reverse side, the letter M surmounted by a little cross, and below it the holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the first surrounded by a crown of thorns, and the second transfixed by a sword. Twelve stars surrounded the monogram of Mary and the two holy Hearts.
Sister Catherine faithfully accomplished the mission Heaven had entrusted to her. In 1832 the medal was struck and immediately underwent a extraordinary diffusion throughout the world, accompanied by unceasing prodigies of cures, protection and conversion. Thus it came to be known as the Miraculous Medal. Let us wear this medal of the Most Blessed Virgin with respect, and often repeat with confidence and love, the invocation by which Our Heavenly Mother desires that we implore favors: O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee.
* * *
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.fU06ZcaTRB5lgxa5OrngNAHaF7%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=39652e2a6905bd220d67c79a22a924ba9819bd73fc80dc4552ef9e01bd689eb1&ipo=images)
Saint Maximus
Bishop of Riez
(† 460)
Saint Maximus, from his youth as the son of a noble Christian family, manifested a firm predilection for virtue. His austerities, undertaken to conserve his virtue at all costs, were so constant and determined that it seemed he merited the crown of martyrdom even without a tyrant to persecute him. For seven years, after he made a private vow of virginity at the age of eighteen and then entered into religion, he was a disciple of Saint Honoratus, Abbot of the famous monastery on the island of Lerins; and in the year 426 he succeeded in that office his master, who had been chosen bishop of Arles.
For seven years, he governed this monastery, and under his guidance, solid piety and penance flourished as well as excellent studies, which he established and directed himself. The demon, irritated, under various disguises persecuted him without respite, but the holy Abbot put him to flight by the sign of the Cross, our salvation. Saint Maximus was remarkable not only for the spirit of recollection, fervor, and piety familiar to him from childhood, but still more for the gentleness and kindliness with which he governed the fervent monks of this monastery. At that time it contained a very large number of them. Exhibiting in his own person an example of the most sterling virtues, his exhortations could not fail to prove all-persuasive; loving all his religious, whom it was his delight to consider as composing one single family, he established among them the sweet concord, union, and holy emulation in virtue which render the exercise of authority virtually unnecessary, and make holy submission a pleasure.
The clergy and people of Antibes near Lerins, then those of Frejus, moved by such a shining example, elected Maximus for their bishop, but he refused this dignity verbally on the first occasion, and on the second took flight in a boat and then into a forest, where he prayed for three days and nights that the Lord would change the dispositions of the people of Frejus. Their emissaries did not succeed in finding him, and proceeded to another election. He fled again after Saint Hilary joined his approbation to the election of the clergy and people of the city of Riez in the French Alps, then large and heavily populated. This time he was found, and was compelled to accept the see of Riez, his native diocese.
When one day a church was to be built on a hilltop and it was necessary to transport heavy columns to the elevated site, the oxen refused to move. The bishop was absent that day, although he had often come to encourage all concerned. The people attached two more animals to the yoke, but still none of them moved. The bishop was advised, and when he arrived told them he saw a demon standing before the oxen to prevent their advance. He put the enemy to flight once more with the sign of the Cross, and himself detached the two animals who had been requisitioned; and the first two, with his blessing, had no difficulty in arriving at the hilltop.
In the see of Riez Saint Maximus practiced virtue in all gentleness until he died in 460, regretted as the best of fathers.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre Conference - Infiltration of Modernism into the Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 09:13 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
THE INFILTRATION OF MODERNISM IN THE CHURCH
The following conference was given by Archbishop Lefebvre at Montreal, Canada in 1982. It demonstrates by personal experience the tragic corruption of modernism right from the time of Pope Pius XI. The Archbishop describes the extraordinary influence of Monsignor Annibale Bugnini in the framing of the New Mass and how his unprecedented daring brought about the "approval" of this protestantized liturgy. This account of his personal experiences is the very clear demonstration of why Archbishop Lefebvre had to disobey so as to not participate in the self-destruction of the Church. We present it to our readers to allow them to share a more personal viewpoint of the Archbishop's battle for the Church and for the Faith.
BRIEF HISTORY
I'm happy to remark that every where in the world, everywhere in the Catholic world, courageous people are uniting together around priests who are faithful to the Catholic faith and to the Catholic Church, so as to maintain Tradition, which is the bulwark of our Faith. If there is a movement as general as this it is because the situation in the Church is truly serious.
If Catholics and good priests, some of whom have served in parishes for thirty years to the great satisfaction of their parishioners, have been able to beat the insult of being treated as disobedient rebels and dissidents, it could have only have been so as to maintain the Catholic Faith. They do it knowingly, following the spirit of the martyrs.
Whether one is persecuted by one's own brethren or by the enemies of the Church, it is still to suffer martyrdom, provided it be for the maintaining of the Faith. These priests and faithful are witnesses of the Catholic Faith. They prefer to be considered rebels and dissidents rather than lose their Faith.
Throughout the entire world we are in the presence of a tragic and unheard of situation, which seems never to have happened before in the history of the Church. We must at least try to explain this extraordinary phenomenon. How has it come to pass that good faithful and priests are obliged to fight to maintain the Catholic faith in a Catholic world, which is in the process of totally breaking up?
It was Pope Paul VI himself who spoke of self-destruction within the Church. What does this term self-destruction mean, if it is not that the Church is destroying herself by herself, and hence by her own members. This is already what Pope St. Pius X said in his first encyclical when he wrote: “Henceforth the enemy of the church is no longer outside the church, he is now within." And the Pope did not hesitate to designate those places where he was to be found: "The enemy is found in the seminaries." Consequently, the holy Pope St. Pius X already denounced the presence of the enemies of the Church in the seminaries at the beginning of the century.
Obviously the seminarians of the time, who where imbued with modernism, sillonism and progressivism, later became priests. Some of them even became Bishops and among them were even some Cardinals. One could quote the names of those who were seminarians at the beginning of the century and who are now dead but whose spirit was clearly modernist and progressivist.
Thus already Pope St. Pius X denounced this division in the Church, which was to be the beginning of a very real rupture within the Church and within the clergy.
I am no longer young. During my whole life as a seminarian, as a priest and as a Bishop I have seen this division. I saw it already at the French seminary at Rome where by the grace of God I was able to study. I must admit that I was not very keen to do my studies in Rome. I would personally have preferred to study with the seminarians of my diocese in the Lille Seminary and to become an assistant vicar, and finally a parish priest in a small country parish.
I longed simply to maintain the Faith in a parish. I saw myself somewhat as the spiritual father of a population to which I was sent to teach the Catholic Faith and morals. But it happened otherwise. After the First World War my brother was already at Rome, for he had been separated from the family by the circumstances of the war in the north of France. Consequently my parents insisted that I go to be with him. "Since your brother is already at Rome, at the French seminary, go and join him so as to continue your studies with him." Thus I left for Rome. I studied at the Gregorian University from 1923 to 1930. I was ordained in 1929 and I remained as a priest at the seminary during one year.
THE FIRST VICTIMS OF MODERNISM
During my Seminary years tragic events took place, which now remind me of exactly what I lived through during the Council. I am now in practically the same situation as our Seminary Rector at the time. Fr. Le Floch. When I was there he had already been Rector of the French Seminary at Rome for thirty years. From Brittany, he was a very outstanding man and as strong and firm in the Faith as Brittany granite. He taught us the Papal encyclicals and the exact nature of the Modernism condemned by St. Pius X, the modern errors condemned by Leo XIII and the liberalism condemned by Pius IX. We liked our Fr. Le Floch very much. We were very attached to him.
But his firmness in doctrine and in Tradition obviously displeased the progressive wing. Progressive Catholics already existed at that time. The Popes had to condemn them.
Not only did Fr. Le Floch displease the progressives, but he also displeased the French government. The French government feared that by the intermediary of Fr. Le Floch and by that formation, which was given to the seminarians at the French Seminary in Rome traditional Bishops, would come to France and would give to the Church in France a traditional and clearly anti-liberal direction.
For the French government was Masonic and consequently profoundly liberal and frightened at the thought that non-liberal Bishops could take over the most important posts. Pressure was consequently exerted on the Pope so as to eliminate Fr. Le Floch. It was Francisque Gay, the future leader of the M.R.P., who was in charge of this operation. He came to Rome to exert pressure on Pope Pius XI, denouncing Fr. Le Floch as being, so he said, a member of "Action Franaise" and a politician who taught his seminarians to also be members of "Action Franaise.’
This was all nothing but a lie. For three years I heard Fr. Le Floch in his spiritual conferences. Never did he speak to us of "Action Franaise." Likewise people now say to me: "You were formerly a member of Action Franaise.’” I have never been a member of "Action Franaise."
Clearly we were accused of being members of "Action Franaise," Nazis and fascists and every other pejorative label because we were anti-revolutionary and anti-liberal.
Thus an inquiry was made. The Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (Card. Schuster) was sent to the seminary. He wasn't the least of the Cardinals. He was in fact a Benedictine of great holiness and intelligence. He had been designated by Pope Pius XI to make the inquiry at the French Seminary so as to determine if the accusations of Francisque Gay were true or not. The inquiry took place. The result was: the French Seminary functions perfectly well under the direction of Fr. Le Floch. We have absolutely nothing to reproach the Seminary Rector with. But this did not suffice.
Three months later a new inquiry was begun, this time with the order to do away with Fr. Le Floch. The new inquiry was made by a member of a Roman Congregation. He concluded, in effect, that Fr. Le Floch was a friend of "Action Franaise," that he was dangerous for the Seminary and that he had to be asked to resign. This is just what happened.
In 1926 the Holy See requested Fr. Le Floch to kindly abandon his post as Rector of the French Seminary. He was overwhelmed with sorrow. Fr. Le Floch had never been a politician. He was traditional, attached to the doctrines of the Church and the Popes. In addition he had been a great friend of Pope St. Pius X, who had had great confidence in him. It was precisely because he was a friend of St. Pius X that he was the enemy of the progressive wing.
It was at the same time that I was at the French Seminary that Cardinal Billot was also attacked. He was a first class theologian at the time and remains today well known and studied in our Seminaries. Monseigneur Billot, Cardinal of the Holy Church, was deposed. The purple was taken away from him and he was sent away in penance to Castelgandolfo, quite close to Albano, where the Jesuits have a house. He was forbidden to leave under pretext of having connections with "Action Franaise."
In fact Cardinal Billot never belonged to "Action Franaise." He did, however, hold Naurras in high esteem and had cited him in his theology books. In the second volume concerning the Church (De Ecclesia), for example, Cardinal Billot accomplished a magnificent study of liberalism where he took, in the form of notes, several quotations from Maurras. This was a mortal sin! This was all they could find to depose Cardinal Billot. It is not a minor tragedy, for he was one of the great theologians of his time and yet he was deposed as a Cardinal and reduced to the state of a simple priest, for he was not a Bishop. (At that time there were still some Cardinal deacons.) It was already the persecution.
POPE PlUS XI UNDERWENT THE INFLUENCE OF THE PROGRESSIVE WING
Pope Pius XI himself fell under the influence of the progressives who were already present in Rome. For we see a distinct difference from the Popes before and after. But nevertheless Pope Pius XI at the same time wrote some magnificent encyclicals. He was not a liberal. "Divini Redemptoris," his encyclical against Communism was magnificent. So also was his encyclical on Christ the King, which established the feast of Christ The King and proclaimed the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. His encyclical on Christian Education is absolutely admirable and remains today a fundamental document for those who defend Catholic schools.
If on the level of doctrine Pope Pius XI was an admirable man, he was weak in the order of practical action. He was easily influenced. It is thus that he was very strongly influenced at the time of the Mexican Civil War and gave the Cristeros, who were in the process of defending the Catholic religion and combating for Christ the King, the order to have confidence in the government and to put down their arms. As soon as they had put down their arms they were all massacred. This horrifying massacre is still remembered today in Mexico. Pope Pius XI placed confidence in the government who deceived him. Afterwards, he was visibly very upset. He could not imagine how a government, which had promised to treat with honor those who defended their Faith, could have then gone on to massacre them. Thus thousands of Mexicans were killed on account of their Faith.
Already at the beginning of this century we find certain situations, which announce a division in the Church. Slowly we arrived at it, but the division was very definite just before the council.
Pope Pius XII was a great pope well in his writing as in his way of governing the Church. During the reign of Pius XII the Faith was firmly maintained. Naturally the liberals did not like him, for he brought back to mind the fundamental principles of theology and truth.
But then John XXIII came along. He had a totally different temperament than Pius XII. John XXIII was a very simple and open man. He did not see problems anywhere.
When he decided to hold a Synod Rome they said to him, "But Holy Father, a Synod has to be prepared. At least one year is necessary and perhaps two so as to prepare such a meeting, in order that numerous fruits be gained and that reforms be truly studied and then applied so that your diocese of Rome might draw profit from it. All this cannot be done straight away and in the space of two or three months followed by two weeks of meetings and then all will be fine. It is not possible."
"Oh yes, yes I know, I know, but it going to be a small Synod. We can prepare it in a few months and everything will be just fine."
Thus the Synod was rapidly prepared: a few commissions at Rome, everybody very busy and then two weeks of meetings and all was over with. Pope John XXIII was happy his small Synod had been held, but the results were nil. Nothing had changed in the diocese of Rome. The situation was exactly the same as before.
THE DRIFT BEGINS WITH THE COUNCIL
It was exactly the same thing for the Council. "I have the intention to hold a Council." Already Pope Pius XII had been asked by certain Cardinals to hold a Council. But he had refused, believing that it was impossible. We cannot in our time hold a Council with 2,500 bishops. The pressures that can exercised by the mass media are too dangerous for us to dare hold a Council. We are liable to get out of depth. And there was in fact no Council.
But Pope John XXIII said: "But it’s fine: we don't need to be pessimistic. You have to look on things with confidence. We will come together for three months with all the Bishops of the entire world. We will begin on October 13. Then everything will be over with between December 8 and January 25. Everybody will go home, and the Council will be over and done with."
And so the Pope held the Council! Nevertheless it did have to be prepared. A Council cannot be held off the bat just like a Synod. It was indeed prepared two years in advance. I was personally named as a member of the Central Preparatory Commission as Archbishop of Dakar and president of the West African Episcopal Conference. I therefore came to Rome at least ten times during the two years so as to participate in the meetings of the Central Preparatory Commission.
It was very important, for all the documents of the secondary commissions had to come through it so as to be studied and submitted to the Council. There were in this commission seventy Cardinals and around twenty Archbishops and Bishops, as well as the experts. These experts were not members of the Commission, but were only present so they could eventually be consulted by the members.
THE APPEARANCE OF DIVISION
During these two years the meetings followed one another and it became clearly apparent for all the members present that there was a profound division within the Church itself. This profound division was not accidental or superficial but was even deeper amongst the Cardinals than amongst the Archbishops and Bishops. On the occasion of the casting of votes the conservative Cardinals could be seen to vote in one way and the progressive Cardinals in another. And all the votes were always more or less the same way. There was obviously a real division amongst the Cardinals.
I describe the following incident in one of my books A Bishop Speaks. I often mention it because it truly characterizes the end of the Central Commission and the beginning of the Council. It was during the last meeting, and we had received beforehand ten documents on the same subject. Cardinal Bea had prepared a text "De Libertate Religiosa," "Concerning Religious Liberty." Cardinal Ottaviani had prepared another, "De 'Tolerantia Religiosa, "Concerning Religious Tolerance."
The simple fact the two different titles on the same subject was significant of two different conceptions. Cardinal Bea spoke of freedom for all religions and Cardinal Ottaviani of freedom for the Catholic religion along with tolerance of error and false religions. How could such a disagreement have been resolved by the Commission?
From the beginning Cardinal Ottaviani pointed the finger at Cardinal Bea and said, “Your Eminence, you do not have the right to present this document."
Cardinal Bea replied, “Excuse me but I have perfectly the right to put together a document as President of the Commission for Unity. Consequently, I have knowingly put together this document. Moreover, I am totally opposed to your opinion."
Thus two of the most eminent Cardinals, Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, and Cardinal Bea, former Confessor of Pope Pius XII, a Jesuit having a great deal of influence on all the Cardinals, who was well known in the Biblical Institute and responsible for advanced biblical studies, were opposed on a fundamental thesis in the Church. Unity for all religions is one thing, that is to say that liberty and error are placed on the same footing; but liberty of the Catholic religion along with tolerance of error is something quite different. Traditionally the Church has always been for the opinion of Cardinal Ottaviani and not for that of Cardinal Bea, which is totally liberal.
Then Cardinal Ruffini, from Palermo, stood up and said; “We are now in the presence of two confreres who are opposed to one another on a question which is very important in the Church. We are consequently obliged to refer to a higher authority."
Quite often the Pope came to preside over our meetings. But he was not there for this last meeting. Consequently the Cardinals requested to vote: "We cannot wait to go and see the Holy Father. We are going to vote." We voted. Just about one half of the Cardinals voted for the opinion of Cardinal Bea and the other half for that of Cardinal Ottaviani. All those who voted for Cardinal Bea's opinion were the Dutch, German, French and Austrian Cardinals, and all those in general from Europe and North America. The traditional Cardinals were those of the Roman Curia, from South America and in general those of Spanish Language.
It was a true rupture in the Church. From this moment I asked myself how the Council could proceed with such opposition on such important points. Who would win? Would it be Cardinal Ottaviani with the Cardinals of Spanish or romance languages or would it be the European Cardinals and those of North America?
In effect, the battle began immediately, from the very first days of the Council. Cardinal Ottaviani had presented the list of members who had belonged to the preparatory commissions, leaving full freedom for each to chose those that he wanted. It was obvious that we could not all know one another, since each one came for his own diocese. How could one possibly know the 2,500 Bishops of the world? We were asked to vote for members of the commissions of the Council. But who could we chose? We did not know the Bishops from South America nor from South Africa nor from India. ..
Cardinal Ottaviani thought that Rome's choices for the preparatory commissions could help as an indication for the Council Fathers. It was in fact quite normal to propose these.
Cardinal Lienart arose and said, "We do not accept this way of doing things. We ask for 48 hours to reflect, that we might know better those who could make up the different commissions. This is to exert pressure on the judgement of the Fathers. We do not accept it."
The Council had begun only two days previously and already there was a violent opposition between the Cardinals. What had happened?
During these 48 hours the liberal Cardinals had already prepared lists made out from all the countries of the world. They distributed these in the letterboxes of all the Council Fathers. We had therefore all received a list proposing the members of such and such a commission; that is such a bishop and another etc. from different countries. Many said: "After all why not. I do not know them. Since the list is already ready we have simply to make use of it." Forty-eight hours later it was the liberals' list, which was in front. But it did not receive the two thirds of the votes, which were required by the Council rules.
What then would the Pope do? Would Pope John XXIII make an exception to the rules of the Council or would he apply them? Clearly the liberal Cardinals were afraid that he might apply them and so they ran to the Pope and said to him: "Listen, we have more than half the votes, nearly 60%. You cannot refuse that. We cannot keep going like this and hold another election. We will never be done with it. This is clearly the will of the majority of the Council and we have simply to accept it." And Pope John XXIII accepted. From this beginning all the members of the Council commissions were chosen by the liberal wing. It is easy to imagine what an enormous influence this had on the Council.
I am sure Pope John XXIII died prematurely because of what he saw at the Council, although he had thought that at the end of a few months everything would be done with. It was to be a council of three months. Then all would say good-bye and go home happy for having met one another at Rome and for having had a nice little meeting.
He discovered that the Council was to be a world of itself, a world of continual clashes. No text came from the first session of the Council. Pope John XXIII was overwhelmed by this and I am persuaded that this hastened his death. It has even been said that on his deathbed he said: “Stop the Council; stop the Council."
POPE PAUL VI GIVES HIS SUPPORT TO THE LIBERALS
Pope Paul VI came along. It is obvious that he gave his support to the liberal wing. Why was that?
From the very beginning of his pontificate, during the second Session of the Council, he immediately named four Moderators. The four Moderators were to direct the Council instead of the ten Presidents who had presided during the first Session. The Presidents, one of whom had presided over one meeting and then the second and then the third, sat at a table higher than the others. But they were to become honorary Presidents. The four Moderators became the true Presidents of the Council.
Who were these moderators? Cardinal Dopfner of Munich was one. He was very progressive indeed and very ecumenical. Cardinal Suenens, whom the entire world knows along with his charismatics and who has given conferences in favor of the marriage of priests, was another. Cardinal Lercaro who is known for his philocommunism and whose Vicar General had been enrolled as a member of the Communist party was a third. Finally there was Cardinal Agagianian, who represented somewhat the traditional wing, if I can say so.
Cardinal Agagianian was a very discreet and self-effacing man. Consequently he had no real influence on the Council. But the three others accomplished their task with drums beating. They constantly brought together the liberal Cardinals, which gave considerable authority to the liberal wing of the Council.
Clearly the traditional Cardinals and Bishops were from this very moment put aside and despised.
When poor Cardinal Ottaviani, who was blind, started to speak, boos could be heard amongst the young Bishops when he did not finish at the end of the ten minutes allocated to him. Thus did they make him understand that they had had enough of listening to him. He had to stop; it was frightful. This venerable Cardinal, who was honored throughout Rome and who had had an enormous influence on the Holy Church, who was Prefect of the Holy Office, which is not a small function, was obliged to stop. It was scandalous to see how the traditionalists were treated.
Monseigneur Staffa (he has since been named Cardinal), who is very energetic, was silenced by the Council Moderators. These were unbelievable things.
REVOLUTION OF THE CHURCH
This is what happened at the Council. It is obvious that all the Council documents and texts were influenced by the liberal Cardinals and Commissions. It is hardly astonishing that we have such ambiguous texts, which favor so many changes and even a true revolution in the Church.
Could we have done anything, we who represented the traditional wing of the Bishops and Cardinals? Frankly speaking, we could do little. We were 250 who favored the maintenance of Tradition and who were opposed to such major changes in the Church as false renewal, false ecumenism, false collegiality. We were opposed to all these things. These 250 bishops clearly brought some weight to bear and on certain occasions forced texts to be modified. Thus the evil was somewhat limited.
But we could not succeed in preventing certain false opinions from being adopted, especially in the schema on Religious Liberty, whose text was redone five times. Five times the same opinion was brought forward. We opposed it on each occasion. There were always 250 votes against. Consequently Pope Paul VI asked that two small sentences be added to the text, saying that there is nothing in this text which is contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church and that the Church remains always the true and the only Church of Christ.
Then the Spanish Bishops in particular said: "Since the Pope has made this statement there is no longer any problem. There is nothing against tradition." If these things are contradictory then this little phrase contradicts everything, which is in the texts. It is a contradictory schema. We could not accept it. Finally there remained, if I remember well, only 74 bishops against. It is the only schema, which met such opposition, but 74 of 2,500 is little indeed!
Thus ended the Council. We should not be astonished at the reforms, which have been introduced since. Since then, everything is the history of Liberalism. The liberals were victorious within the Council for they demanded that Paul VI grant them places within the Roman Congregations. And in fact the important places were given to the progressive clergy. As soon as a Cardinal died or an occasion presented itself, Pope Paul VI would put aside traditional Cardinals, immediately replacing them with liberal ones.
Thus it is that Rome was occupied by the liberals. This is a fact, which cannot be denied. Nor can it be denied that the reforms of the Council were reforms which breathe the spirit of Ecumenism and which are quite simply Protestant, neither more nor less.
THE LITURGICAL REFORM
The most serious of the consequences was the liturgical reform. It was accomplished, as everybody knows, by a well-known priest, Bugnini, who had prepared it long in advance. Already in 1955 Fr. Bugnini had asked Msgr. Pintonello, general Chaplain of the Italian army, who had spent much time in Germany during the occupation, to translate Protestant liturgical texts. For Fr. Bugnini did not know German.
It was Msgr. Pintonello himself who told me that he had translated the Protestant liturgical books for Fr. Bugnini, who at that time was but an insignificant member of a liturgical commission. He was nothing. Afterwards he became professor of liturgy at the Lateran. Pope John XXIII made him leave on account of his modernism and his progressivism. Hence surprise, surprise, and he is found again as President of the Commission for, Liturgical Reform. This is all the same, unbelievable.
I had the occasion to see for myself what influence Fr. Bugnini had. One wonders how such a thing as this could have happened at Rome. At that time immediately after the Council, I was Superior General of the Congregation of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and we had a meeting of the Superiors General at Rome. We had asked Fr. Bugnini explain to us what his New Mass was, for this was not at all a small event. Immediately after the Council was heard of the Normative Mass, the New Mass, the Novus Ordo. What did all this mean?
It had not been spoken of at the Council. What had happened? And so we asked Fr. Bugnini to come and explain himself to the 84 Superiors General who were united together, amongst whom I consequently was.
Fr. Bugnini, with much confidence, explained what the Normative Mass would be; this will be changed, that will be changed and we will put in place another Offertory. We will be able to reduce the communion prayers. We will be able to have several different formats for the beginning of Mass. We will be able to say the Mass in the vernacular tongue. We looked at one another saying to ourselves: “But it's not possible!"
He spoke absolutely, as if there had never been a Mass in the Church before him. He spoke of his Normative Mass as of a new invention.
Personally I was myself so stunned that I remained mute, although I generally speak freely when it is a question of opposing those with whom I am not in agreement. I could not utter a word. How could it be possible for this man before me to be entrusted with the entire reform of the Catholic Liturgy, the entire reform of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the sacraments, of the Breviary, and of all our prayers? Where are we going? Where is the Church going?
Two Superiors General had the courage to speak out. One of them asked Fr. Bugnini: “Is this an active participation, that is a bodily participation, that is to say with vocal prayers, or is it a spiritual participation? In any case you have so much spoken of the participation of the faithful that it seems you can no longer justify Mass celebrated without the faithful. Your entire Mass has been fabricated around the participation of the faithful. We Benedictines celebrate our Masses without the assistance of the faithful. Does this mean that we must discontinue our private Masses, since we do not have faithful to participate in them?"
I repeat to you exactly that which Fr. Bugnini said. I have it still in my ears, so much did it strike me: “To speak truthfully we didn't think of that," he said!
Afterwards another arose and said: "Reverend Father, you have said that we will suppress this and we will suppress that, that we will replace this thing by that and always by shorter prayers. I have the impression that your new Mass could be said in ten or twelve minutes or at the most a quarter of an hour. This is not reasonable. This is not respectful towards such an act of the Church." Well, this is what he replied: "We can always add something." Is this for real? I heard it myself. If somebody had told me the story I would perhaps have doubted it, but I heard it myself.
Afterwards, at the time at which this Normative Mass began to be put into practice, I was so disgusted that we met with some priests and theologians in a small meeting. From it came the “Brief Critical Study,” which was taken to Cardinal Ottaviani. I presided that small meeting. We said to ourselves: “We must go and find the Cardinals. We cannot allow this to happen without reacting."
So I myself went to find the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, and I said to him: “Your Eminence, you are not going to allow this to get through, are you? It's not possible. What is this New Mass? It is a revolution in the Church, a revolution in the Liturgy."
Cardinal Cicognani, who was the Secretary of State of Pope Paul VI, placed his head between his hands and said to me: "Oh Monseigneur, I know well. I am in full agreement with you; but what can I do? Fr. Bugnini goes in to the office of the Holy Father and makes him sign what he wants." It was the Cardinal Secretary of State who told me this! Therefore the Secretary of State, the number two person in the Church after the Pope himself, was placed in a position of inferiority with respect to Fr. Bugnini. He could enter into the Pope's office when he wanted and make him sign what he wanted.
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...3D15.1&f=1]](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.SfgXthR3lwzUWzjO0OD81AHaE_%26pid%3D15.1&f=1)
This can explain why Pope Paul VI signed texts that he had not read. He told Cardinal Journet that he had done this. Cardinal Journet was a deep thinker, Professor at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, and a great theologian. When Cardinal Journet saw the definition of the Mass in the instruction, which precedes the Novus Ordo, he said: ”This definition of the Mass is unacceptable; I must go to Rome to see the Pope." He went and he said: “Holy Father you cannot allow this definition. It is heretical. You cannot leave your signature on a document like this." The Holy Father replied to him (Cardinal Journet did not tell me himself but he told someone who repeated it to me): ”Well, to speak truthfully I did not read it. I signed it without reading it." Evidently, if Fr. Bugnini had such an influence on him it's quite possible. He must have said to the Holy Father: ”You can sign it". "But did you look it over carefully". ”Yes, you can go ahead and sign it." And he signed.
But this document did not go through the Holy Office. I know this because Cardinal Seper himself told me that he was absent when the Novus Ordo was edited and that it did not pass by the Holy Office. Hence it is indeed Fr. Bugnini who obtained the Pope's signature and who perhaps constrained him. We do not know, but he had without a doubt an extraordinary influence over the Holy Father.
A third fact, of which I was myself the witness, with respect to Fr. Bugnini is also astonishing. When permission was about to be give for Communion in the hand (what a horrible thing!), I said to myself that I could not sit by without saying anything. I must go and see Cardinal Gut -a Swiss -who was Prefect of the Congregation for Worship. I therefore went to Rome, where Cardinal Gut received me in a very friendly way and immediately said to me: "I'm going to make my second-in- charge, Archbishop Antonini, come that he also might hear what you have to say."
As we spoke I said: "Listen, you who are responsible for the Congregation for Worship, are you going to approve this decree which authorizes Communion in the hand? Just think of all the sacrileges, which it is going to cause. Just think of the lack of respect for the Holy Eucharist, which is going to spread throughout the entire Church. You cannot possibly allow such a thing to happen. Already priests are beginning to give Communion in this manner. It must be stopped immediately. And with this New Mass they always take the shortest canon, that is the second one, which is very brief"
At this, Cardinal Gut said to Archbishop Antonini, "See, I told you this would happen and that priests would take the shortest canon so as to go more quickly and finish the Mass more quickly."
Afterwards Cardinal Gut said to me: "Monseigneur, if one were to ask my opinion (when he said "one" he was speaking of the Pope, since nobody was over him except the Pope), but I'm not certain it is asked of me (don't forget that he was Prefect for the Congregation for Worship and was responsible for everything which was related to Worship and to the Liturgy!), but if the Pope were to ask for it, I would place myself on my knees, Monseigneur, before the Pope and I would say to him: 'Holy Father do not do this; do not sign this decree.' I would cast myself on my knees, Monseigneur. But I do not know that I will be asked. For it is not I who command here."
This I heard with my own ears. He was making allusion to Bugnini, who was the third in the Congregation for Worship. There was first of all Cardinal Gut, then Archbishop Antonini and then Fr. Bugnini, President of the Liturgical Commission. You ought to have heard that! Alas, you can now understand my attitude when I am told; you are a dissident and disobedient rebel.
INFILTRATORS IN THE CHURCH TO DESTROY IT
Yes, I am a rebel. Yes, I am a dissident. Yes, I am disobedient to people like those Bugninis. For they have infiltrated themselves into the Church in order to destroy it. There is no other explanation.
Are we then going to contribute to the destruction of the Church? Will we say: "Yes, yes, amen'; even if it is the enemy who has penetrated right to the Holy Father and who is able to make the Holy Father sign what he wants? We don't really know under what pressure he did it. There are hidden things, which clearly escape us. Some say that it is Freemasonry. It's possible. I do not know. In any case, there is a mystery.
How can a priest who is not a Cardinal, who is not even a Bishop, who was still very young at the time and who was elevated against the will of Pope John XXIII (who had chased him from the Lateran University), how can such a priest go to the very top without taking any account of the Cardinal Secretary of State, nor of the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Worship? How can he go directly to the Holy Father and make him sign what he wants? Such a thing has never before been seen in the Holy Church. Everything should go through the authorities. That is why there are Commissions. Files are studied. But this man was all powerful!
It was he who brought in Protestant pastors to change our Mass. It was not Cardinal Gut. It was not the Cardinal Secretary of State. It was perhaps not even the Pope. It was him. Who is this man Bugnini? One day the former Abbot of St. Paul Outside the Walls, a Benedictine who had preceded Fr. Bugnini as head of the Liturgical Commission, said to me: "Monseigneur, do not speak to me of Fr. Bugnini. I know too much about him. Do not ask me about him." I replied: "But tell me. I must know it. The truth must be uncovered." It is probably he who asked John XXIII to send him away from the Lateran University.
All of these things show us that the enemy has penetrated right within the Church, as St. Pius X already said. He is in the highest places, as Our Lady of La Salette announced, and as without a doubt the third secret of Fatima tells us.
Well, if the enemy is truly within the Church, must we obey him? "Yes, for he represents the Pope," is a frequent answer. First of all we do not know this at all, for we do not know exactly what the Pope thinks.
I have, all the same, some personal proofs that Pope Paul VI was very much influenced by Cardinal Villot. It has been said that Cardinal Villot was a Freemason. I do not know. There are some strange facts. Letters of Freemasons addressed to Cardinal Villot have been photocopied. I do not have the proof of it. In any case, Cardinal Villot had a considerable influence over the Pope. He concentrated all power at Rome within his own hands. He became the master much more than the Pope. I do know that everything had to go through him.
One day I went to see Cardinal Wright with respect to the Canadian Catechism. I said to him: "Look at this catechism. Are you aware of those little books, which are entitled 'Purture'? It's abominable that children are taught to break away. They must break with their family, with society, with tradition. ..this is the catechism, which is taught to the children of Canada with the Imprimatur of Monseigneur Couderc. It's you who are responsible for catechism in the entire world. Are you in agreement with this catechism?" "No, no," he said to me: "This catechism is not Catholic" -"It is not Catholic! Then immediately tell the Canadian Bishops' Conference. Tell them to stop and to throw this catechism in the fire and to take up the true catechism." His answer was: "How can I oppose myself to a Bishops' Conference?"
I then said: "It's over and done with. There is no more authority in the Church. It's over and done with. If Rome can no longer say anything to a Bishops' Conference, even if it is in the process of destroying children's Faith, then it's the end of the Church."
That is where we are now. Rome is afraid of the Bishops' Conferences. These conferences are abominable. In France the Bishops' Conference has been involved in a campaign in favor of contraception. The Socialist Government, which is constantly advertising on the television the slogan: "Take the pill so as to prevent abortions," got them involved, I think. They had nothing better to do than push crazy propaganda in favor of the pill. The cost of the pill is reimbursed for girls of only twelve years, so as to avoid abortion! And the bishops approve! Official documents in favor of contraception can be found in the Tulle diocese bulletin, which is my former diocese, and which bulletin I continue to receive This came from Bishop Bruneau, a former Superior General of the Sulpicians. He is supposedly one of the best Bishops of France. It's like that!
WHY DO I NOT OBEY?
What should I do? I am told: "You must obey. You are disobedient. You do not have the right to continue doing what you are doing, for you divide the Church."
What is a law? What is a decree? What obliges to obedience? A law, Leo XIII says, is the ordering of reason to the common good, but not towards the common evil. This is so obvious that if a rule is ordered towards an evil, then it is no longer a law. Leo XIII said this explicitly in his encyclical "Libertas." A law, which is not for the common good, is not a law. Consequently one is not obliged to obey it.
Many canon lawyers at Rome say that Bugnini's Mass is not a law. There was no law for the New Mass. It is simply an authorization, or a permit. Let us accept, for argument's sake, that there was a law, which came from Rome, an ordering of reason to the common good and not to the common evil. But the New Mass is in the process of destroying the Church, of destroying the Faith. It's obvious. The Archbishop of Montreal, Archbishop Grgoire, in a letter, which was published, was very courageous. He is one of the rare bishops who dared write a letter in which he denounced the evils of which the Church of Montreal is suffering. "We are greatly saddened to see parishes abandoned by a great number of the faithful. We attribute this, in great part, to the liturgical reform." He had the courage to say it.
We are in the presence of a true plot within the church on the part of the Cardinals themselves, such as Cardinal Knox, who made that famous inquiry concerning the Tridentine Latin Mass throughout the entire world. It was a clear and obvious lie, so as to influence Pope John Paul II that he might say: "If there are such a small number who want Tradition, it will fall away by itself. His investigation was worth nothing." Yet the Pope, at the time that he received me in audience in November of 1978, was ready to sign an agreement according to which priests could celebrate the mass they choose. He was ready to sign that.
But there is at Rome a group of Cardinals bitterly opposed to Tradition. Cardinal Casaroli the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Religious and Cardinal Baggio, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops who has the very important responsibility of nominating bishops, are amongst them. Then there is the infamous Virgilio Noe who is the second-in- charge for the Congregation for Worship and who is perhaps worse even than Bugnini. And then there is Cardinal Hamer, the Belgian Archbishop who is second in charge of the Holy Office, who comes from the region of Louvain and is imbued with all the modern ideas of Louvain. They were bitterly opposed to Tradition. They did not want to hear us speak about it. I believe that they would have strangled me if they could.
AT LEAST LEAVE US LIBERTY
They league together against me as soon as they know I am making an effort to obtain from the Holy Father the freedom for Tradition. Just leave us in peace; just leave us to pray as Catholics have prayed for centuries; just leave us to continue what we learned in the seminary; just leave us to continue that which you yourselves learned when you were young, that is to say the best way to sanctify ourselves.
This is what we were taught at the Seminary. I taught this when I was a priest. When I became a bishop I myself said this to my priests, to all my priests and to all my seminarians. This is what you need to do to become a saint. Love the holy sacrifice of the Mass, which is given to us by the Church. Be devoted to her sacraments and her catechism, and especially change nothing. Keep Tradition. Keep to the Tradition, which has lasted for twenty centuries. It is that which sanctifies us. It is that which sanctified the saints. But now all has been changed. This cannot be. Just leave us at least freedom!
Obviously, when they hear this they immediately go to the Holy Father and say to him: "Concede nothing to Archbishop Lefebvre, grant nothing to Tradition. Especially do not back down."
Since these are the most important Cardinals, such as Cardinal Casaroli the Secretary of State the Pope does not dare. There are some Cardinals who would be rather more in favor of an agreement, such as Cardinal Ratzinger. It is he who replaced Cardinal Seper who died at Christmas of 1981. Cardinal Ratzinger was nevertheless very liberal at the time of the Council. He was a friend of Rahner, of Hans Kung, and of Schillebeeckx. But his nomination as Archbishop of the diocese of Munich seemed to open his eyes somewhat. He is now certainly much more aware of the danger of the reforms and more desirous of returning to traditional rules, along with Cardinal Palazzini who is in charge of the Congregation for Beatifications and Cardinal Oddi who is in charge of the Congregation for the Clergy. These three cardinals would be in favor of allowing us freedom. But the others have still a great deal of influence over the Holy Father...
I was at Rome five weeks ago, so as to see Cardinal Ratzinger who was named by the Pope to replace Cardinal Seper as a personal intermediary for relations with the Society and myself. Cardinal Seper had been named on the occasion of the audience, which Pope John Paul II granted me. The Pope had made Cardinal Seper come and had said to him: "Your Eminence, you will have the job of maintaining relations between Archbishop Lefebvre and myself. You will be my intermediary." Now he has named Cardinal Ratzinger.
I went to see him and I spoke with him during an hour and three quarters. Certainly Cardinal Ratzinger seems more positive and more willing to come to a good solution. The only difficulty, which remains rather troublesome, is the Mass. Ultimately it has always been a question of the Mass, right from the beginning.
For they know very well that I am not against the Council. There are some things, which I cannot accept in the Council. I did not sign the schema on Religious Liberty. I did not sign the schema on the Church in the modern world. But it cannot be said that I am against the Council. These are things, which cannot be accepted because they are contrary to Tradition. This ought not to upset them too much, since the Pope himself said: "The Council must be looked at in the light of Tradition." If the Council is to be accepted in the light of Tradition I am not at all upset.
I will readily sign this, because everything, which is contrary to Tradition, is clearly to be rejected. During the audience, which the Pope granted me (-on November 18, 1978 - Ed.),, he asked me: "Are you ready to sign this formula?” I replied: "You yourself used it and I am ready to sign it." Then he said: "Then there are no doctrinal differences between us? " I replied: "I hope not." - "Now what problems remain? Do you accept the Pope?" - "Of course we recognize the Pope and we pray for the Pope in our Seminaries. Ours are perhaps the only seminaries in the world where the Pope is prayed for. We have a great deal of respect for the Pope. Each time the Pope has asked me to come I have always come. But there is a difficulty concerning the liturgy,” I said to him, “which is truly very important. The new liturgy is in the process of destroying the Church and the Seminaries. This is a very important question.” – “But not at all. This is but a disciplinary question. It is not very serious at all. If this is the only problem. I believe that it can be fixed up.”
And the Pope called Cardinal Seper, who came immediately. If he had not come I believe that the Pope would have been ready to sign an agreement. Cardinal Seper came, and the Pope said to him: “I believe that it should not be so difficult to make an agreement with Archbishop Lefebvre. I believe that we can come to an agreement. There is just the question of the liturgy which is a little thorny.” – “But, concede nothing to Archbishop Lefebvre,” cried out the Cardinal. “They make of the Tridentine Mass a flag.” – “A flag?” I said. “But of course the holy mass is the flag of our Faith, the ‘mysterium fidei.’ It is the great mystery of our Faith. It is obvious that it is our flag, for it is the expression of our Faith.”
This made a profound impression on the Holy Father, who appeared to change almost immediately. In my opinion this showed that the Pope is not a strong man. If he had been a strong man he would have said: "It is I who am going to decide this matter. We are going to fix things up." But no. Immediately he became as if were afraid. He became fearful, and when he left his office he said to Cardinal Seper: "You can speak together right now. You can try to make an arrangement with Archbishop Lefebvre. You can stay here. But I am obliged to go and see Cardinal Baggio. He has very many files to show me concerning Bishops. I must leave." As he left he said to me: "Stop, Monseigneur, stop." He was transformed. In a few minutes he had completely changed.
It was during this audience that I had shown him a letter that I had received from a Polish Bishop. He had written to me a year beforehand in order to congratulate me for the Seminary I had founded at Econe and for the priests that I was forming. He wished that I maintain the old Mass with all its Tradition. He added that he was not the only one. We are several Bishops who admire you, who admire your Seminary, the formation that you give to your priests and the Tradition that you maintain within the Church. For we are obliged to use the new liturgy, which makes our faithful lose the Faith.
That is what the Polish Bishop said. I took this letter with me when I went to see the Holy Father, saying to myself: "He will surely speak to me of Poland." I was not wrong. He said to me: "But you know, in Poland all is going very well. Why do you not accept the reforms? In Poland there are no problems. People are simply sorry to have lost the Latin. We were very attached to Latin, because it bound us to Rome and we are very Roman. It is a pity, but what can I do? There is no longer any Latin in the Seminaries nor in the Breviary nor in the Mass. There is no more Latin. It's quite unfortunate, but it's just like that. You see, in Poland these reforms were made and they did not create any difficulty. Our seminaries are full, and our Churches are full."
I said to the Holy Father: ”Allow me to show you a letter I received from Poland." I showed it to him. When he saw the name of the Bishop he said: "Oh, this is the greatest of the communists' enemies." -"It's a good reference," I said. The Pope read the letter carefully. I watched his face in order to see how he would react to those words which were twice repeated in the letter: "We are obliged to use the liturgical reform which makes our faithful lose the Faith." Obviously the Pope could not accept this. At the end he said to me: "Did you receive this letter just like that? " – “Yes, this is a photocopy that I bring to you." - "It must be a fake," he replied.
What could I say? I could no longer say anything. The Pope said to me: "You know, the Communists are very cunning in their efforts to provoke divisions among the Bishops." So according to him this was a letter fabricated by the Communists and then sent to me. I am very doubtful about this. This letter was posted in Austria, for I imagine that the author was afraid that the Communists would intercept it and that it would not arrive. That is why he posted it in Austria. I replied to the Bishop but I heard nothing more from him.
All this is to say that I think that there are even in Poland profound divisions. Moreover, there have always been divisions between the peace priests and those who wish to hold fast to Tradition. This has been tragic behind the iron curtain.
THE COMMUNIST INFLUENCE ON ROME
You ought to read the book "Moscow and the Vatican," by the Jesuit, Father Lepidi. It is extraordinary. It shows the influence that the Communists had in Rome, and how they were responsible for the nomination of Bishops and even of two Cardinals: Cardinal Lekai and Cardinal Tomaseck. Cardinal Lekai, was the successor of Cardinal Mindszenty, and Cardinal Tomaseck was the successor of Cardinal Beran. Both Cardinal Mindszenty and Cardinal Beran were heroes and martyrs for the Faith. They were replaced by peace priests who were determined above everything else to come to an understanding with the Communist government who persecuted traditional priests. These traditional priests went secretly to baptize in the countryside or to secretly catechize so as to continue their work as pastors in the Catholic Church, and yet they were persecuted by their Bishops, who said to them: "You do not have the right not to respect the rules of the Communist government. You do us a disfavor by acting against its laws.”
But these priests were ready to give their life so as to keep the Faith of children, so as to keep Faith in families, and so as to give sacraments to those who had need of them. Obviously in these countries one had always to ask for authorizations, if one wanted to carry the Blessed Sacrament to a hospital or to do anything at all. As soon as they left their sacristy these priests were obliged to ask the Communist party if it authorized them to do this or that. This was impossible. People died without the sacraments. Children were no longer educated in a Christian way. So the priests had to do these things in secret. If they were caught it was often because the Bishops themselves persecuted them. It's frightening.
Neither Cardinal Wyszynski nor Cardinal Slipyi nor Cardinal Mindszenty nor Cardinal Beran would have done such things as these. They, to the contrary, encouraged good priests, saying to them: "Go ahead, go ahead. If you are put into prison you will have done your duty as a priest. If you must die martyrs then you will be martyrs.”
This shows how much influence they had on Rome. We have great difficulty in imagining it. We cannot even believe it.
I have never been against the Pope. I have never said that the Pope is not the Pope. I am absolutely for the Pope, for the successor of Peter. I do not want to separate myself from Rome. But I am against modernism, progressivism, and all the bad and destructive influences, which Protestantism has had via the reforms. I am against all those reforms, which poison us and poison the life of the faithful.
Thus I am told: "You are against the Pope." No, I am not against the Pope. To the contrary, I come to help the Pope. For the Pope cannot be modernist; he cannot be progressivist. Even if he allows himself to be pushed around, it is by weakness. This can happen. St. Peter also was weak with respect to the Jews. And St. Paul severely reproached him for: “You do not walk according to the Gospel," he said to St. Peter. St. Peter was the Pope and St. Paul reproached him. And he did it vigorously: “I reproached the head of the Church because he was not walking according to the law of the Gospel." It was a grave thing to say this to the Pope.
St. Catherine of Siena also vehemently reproached several Popes. We must have the same attitude. We say: “Holy Father, you are not doing your duty. You must return to Tradition to be persecuted by all those Cardinals and Bishops who are modernists you are going to bring about the ruin of the Church."
I am sure that in his heart the Pope is profoundly concerned and that he seeks for a means to renew the Church. I hope that by our prayers and sacrifices and the prayers of those who love the Holy Church and who love the Pope we will succeed.
This will be especially by devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. If we pray to Our Lady, she who cannot abandon her Son, she who cannot abandon the Church that her Son founded, the mystical Spouse of her Son, we will be answered. It will be difficult and a miracle, but we will succeed.
As for myself, I do not want people to make me say that the New Mass is good, but that it is simply less good than the Traditional Mass. I cannot say that. I cannot say that these modern sacraments are good. They were made by Protestants. They were made by Bugnini. And Bugnini himself said on March 19, 1965, as can still be read in the “Osservatore Romano" and in “Documentation Catholique," which magazines published a translation of Bugnini's discourse: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants."
This was on March 19, 1965, just before all the reforms. Can we go to the Protestants and ask them concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, concerning our catechism? In what are you not in agreement? Do you not like this or do you not like that? ...Well we will suppress it. This is not possible. It would perhaps not be heretical to do so, but the Catholic Faith would be diminished. Thus it is that people no longer believe in Limbo, in Purgatory and in Hell. Original sin is no longer believed in, neither are the angels. Grace is not believed in. People no longer speak of that which is supernatural. Our Faith is being destroyed.
So we must absolutely maintain our Faith and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary. We desire to undertake a giant task, and without the help of the good Lord we will never be able to accomplish it. I am certainly aware of my weakness and of my isolation. What can I do by myself compared to the Pope or the Cardinals? I do not know. I go as a pilgrim, with my pilgrim's staff. I am going to say "keep the Faith." Keep the Faith. Be rather a martyr then abandon your Faith. You must keep the sacraments and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
You cannot say: "But it is all different now. It is not too bad after all. As for me, I have a solid Faith and I'm not likely to lose it." For it is clear that those who habitually attend the New Mass and the new sacraments undergo a gradual change of mentality. After a few years it will become apparent in questioning somebody who goes regularly to this new ecumenical Mass that he has adopted its ecumenical spirit. This means that he ends up by placing all religions on the same footing. If he is asked whether one can save oneself through Protestantism, through Buddhism, or through Islam he will reply: "But of course. All religions are good." And there you have it. He has become liberal and Protestant and is no longer Catholic.
There is only one religion. There are not two of them. If Our Lord is God and founded a religion, the Catholic Religion, there can be no other religion. It is not possible. The other religions are false. That is why Cardinal Ottaviani used the title: "Concerning Religious Tolerance.”
Errors can be tolerated when they cannot be prevented. But they cannot be placed on the same footing as the truth. There could then be no missionary spirit. The missionary spirit could not then be possible. If all the false religions save souls then why go out on mission? What is one going to do there? We have only to leave them in their religion and they are going to all save themselves. This is not possible. What, then, has the Church done for twenty centuries? Why all the martyrs? Why were they all massacred on the mission? Did the missionaries waste their time? Did the martyrs waste their blood and their lives? We cannot accept that.
We must remain Catholic. The slide into ecumenism is very dangerous. Easily one falls into a religion, which is no longer the Catholic religion.
I sincerely wish that all could be witnesses of Our Lord, of the Catholic Church of the Faith, and of Catholicism, even if we have to be despised and insulted in the newspapers, in the parishes and in the churches. What does it matter? We are witnesses of the Catholic Church. We are the true sons of the Catholic Church and true sons of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
+ Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
(Translated from Fideliter, Janvier-Fevrier 1992, and published in parts in various issues of the Angelus.)
[Emphasis and images - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fposercontent.com%2Fsites...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fposercontent.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fproducts%2F16%2F0916%2F0232%2F8-medieval-scriptorium.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: jesuit_tweettt_328_487_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/jesuit_tweettt_328_487_75_s_c1.jpg)
![[Image: news5588d370770b1a63384579f25f6b38c4.jpg]](https://www.livingwithchrist.africa/uploads/news/news5588d370770b1a63384579f25f6b38c4.jpg)
![[Image: Dr._Roger_Hodkinson_Western_Medical_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Dr._Roger_Hodkinson_Western_Medical_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
![[Image: Church-crackdown-1200x630.png]](https://bigleaguepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Church-crackdown-1200x630.png)
![[Image: saint_andrew.jpg]](https://sanctoral.com/en/saints/images/saint_andrew.jpg)
![[Image: saint_saturninus.jpg]](https://sanctoral.com/en/saints/images/saint_saturninus.jpg)
![[Image: saint_catherine_laboure.jpg]](https://sanctoral.com/en/saints/images/saint_catherine_laboure.jpg)
