+- The Catacombs (https://thecatacombs.org)
+-- Forum: Catholic Resistance (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+---- Forum: Sermons and Conferences (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=57)
+---- Thread: Archbishop Lefebvre: 1986 Conference - Twenty Years of Struggle (/showthread.php?tid=320)
Archbishop Lefebvre: 1986 Conference - Twenty Years of Struggle - Stone - 12-07-2020
The Angelus - April 1987
Twenty Years of Struggle
A Conference Given by His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre during a Priestly Retreat at Ecône
September 1986
September 1986
Part I
The Society of St. Pius X was founded seventeen years ago. On June 6, 1969, Archbishop Charriere wrote a letter authorizing the foundation of a seminary and on November 1st, 1970, he approved the foundation of the Society of St. Pius X in his diocese of Fribourg. For those who do not know well its history it will be good to record its principal steps, especially at a time and in the present circumstances in which we strive to continue and develop what Divine Providence gave us to do.
If events would bring a change towards a return to Tradition within the Church, of course, our situation would be simplified. We would certainly be welcomed by the hierarchy as we were at our beginning and those problems of our relations with the Bishops and Rome would no longer exist.
However, at the present time we must keep the authenticity of the Society which has been founded during very particular circumstances, but in a way that could have been during normal times. It was occasioned by the degradation of seminaries. But there were similar societies, such as that of St. Vincent de Paul or of St. John Eudes which were founded with a similar goal, which was and still is to give a good priestly formation to future priests, and to enable them to exercise their ministry for a true restoration in the Church.
The Society was founded, first of all, to make good priests and thus to open seminaries. This is in perfect conformity with the Tradition of the Church, to continue the traditional priestly formation for the good of the Church.
We have no other goal nor have we ever innovated except in the sense of tradition, by restoring some elements which were lacking in the formation given to seminarians, especially at the spiritual level. This is the reason why we have added to the studies of philosophy and theology one year of spirituality. This year of spirituality completes the preparation of the seminarians to the priesthood by putting them in a truly spiritual atmosphere. It is certainly not an innovation in the modernist direction but rather in the direction of the tradition of the Church.
Thus our foundation took care to add to the studies a deep spiritual formation by this additional year, which constitutes a kind of novitiate, and which leads to the knowledge of what spirituality is and to the practice of the interior life ‑ purgative, illuminative and mystical life which requires a true conversion of heart.
Our Society has not been founded on the model of a religious congregation. Why? Because in practice it happens too frequently that there are too many difficulties encountered by religious to exercise an apostolate in the world and still respecting truly the strict poverty as it is requested in the religious congregations, where one cannot own anything and cannot use anything without asking the authorization of a Superior. In all things one must depend on the Superior. It was thus preferable not to be bound by such a vow of poverty which could not be put into practice. It was better to found a Society of common life without vows but with engagements.
Thus Divine Providence had decided that our Society would be on the model of the Societies of common life without vows. This has proved to be a good decision. And there is no reason not to continue as such.
THE SOCIETY OFFICIALLY APPROVED BY ROME
It is with this Constitution that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X was approved and erected in his diocese by Monsigneur Charriére, Bishop of Fribourg, and it is with this same Constitution that it has been approved by Rome.
This point is very important and even fundamental, and one must not hesitate to remind those who do not know well the history of our Society. This Roman document is indeed capital, because it is absolutely official. It is dated February 18th, 1971, with the stamp of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, and it is signed by its Prefect Cardinal Wright, and sub-signed by Msgr. Palazzini, who was at that time his Secretary, and who is today a Cardinal. This official document coming from a Roman Congregation approving and praising "the wisdom of the rules" of the statutes of the Society, cannot be considered except as "a decree of praise" and thus authorized our Society to be considered as of Pontifical right, with capability to incardinate.
Other official acts made by the Congregation for the Religious with Prefect Cardinal Antoniutti came to complete and confirm this official approbation, since they allowed Father Snyder and another American religious to be duly incardinated into the Society. These were truly official acts of Rome.
These official documents necessarily lead to the following observation: the Congregation for the Clergy considered de facto our Society competent to incardinate regularly and validly.
Personally, however, I did not feel the need to resort to this possibility, until we had been officially but illegally suppressed. Until then I had always taken pains to have Bishops give the incardinations. I turned to Mgr. de Castro Mayer of Brazil, to Mgr. Castan Lacoma in Spain and to Mgr. Guibert in La Reunion. These three Bishops would accept to provide dimissorial letters to priests of our Society who would thereby find themselves incardinated in their respective diocese. As for Father Aulagnier, he was incardinated in his own diocese of Clermont‑Ferrand, by Mgr. de la Chanonie. At that time we were doubly in order. Mgr. Adam told me explicitly: "Why do you not incardinate in your Society?" I answered: "It appears to me that it is only diocesan." I was therefore following the canonical regulations more strictly than necessary.
Indeed, these documents from the Congregation for the Clergy concerning the incardination of these two American clerics into our Society, are even more important than the letter signed by Cardinal Wright. That was incidentally the answer that I gave to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when I was interrogated about these incardinations. I was told: "You do not have the right to incardinate in your Society." "I do not have the right? In that case the Congregation for the Clergy should be informed that it was mistaken in incardinating in our Society!"
This document from Cardinal Wright, if one studies it closely, is not only a letter but a 'decree of praise,' since it effectively praises the statutes of the Fraternity. It is a thoroughly official document. It is in no way a private letter. In this fashion, and for five years, we enjoyed the total approbation of the diocesan church and of Rome. We were rooted in the Church as a good branch in a tree. This is fundamental to the providential action accomplished by the Fraternity, and reinforces us in our existence and in our activities in general. Being truly of the Church, officially recognized by the Church, we have been persecuted.
WHY ARE WE PERSECUTED?
We are persecuted only because we maintain Tradition and in particular the liturgical Tradition.
In keeping as always the facts in their chronological order it is also of the greatest interest to reread the letter addressed to me by Mgr. Mamie on May 6, 1975, to thoroughly absorb the true reasons which motivated the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneve and Fribourg to withdraw illegally the documents effected by his predecessor and particularly the decree establishing the Fraternity as of the November 1, 1970. This is a testimony of Mgr. Mamie in which he admits, in his own writing, that the Fraternity having a seat at Fribourg was the object of a decree of establishment titled 'Pia Unio' and signed by his predecessor which "approve and confirm the statutes of the said Fraternity."
He did not have the right to act in this manner and to withdraw of his own authority this canonical recognition. It is explicitly contrary to Canon Law (Can. 493).
Now, on two occasions Mgr. Mamie in his letter refers to the liturgy:
Quote:"I reminded you of your refusal with regard to the celebration of Holy Mass according to the rite established by His Holiness Paul VI," and, "As far as we are concerned, we continue to request of the Catholic faithful and of Catholic priests to accept and to apply all of the orientations or decisions of the II Vatican Council, all of the teachings of John XXIII and of Paul V1, all of the directives of the secretariats instituted by the Council including those related to the new liturgy. This we have done, and we will continue to do even in the most difficult of days with the grace of God, because if it is the only path to edify the Church."
Such were the writings of Mgr. Mamie at that time.
Thus twice in his letter he refers to the liturgy. "Because you oppose the liturgy." This then is indeed the principal and essential motive for taking these indescribable and illegal measures against us. It is necessary to remember this fact. The matter of the priestly ordinations was a later development. In reality, the true reason we have been and are persecuted ‑ illegally once again ‑ by Mgr. Mamie, by the cardinals of Rome and the bishops of France, is our attachment to the Immemorial Mass. "Since you continue with this liturgy, you are against the Vatican Council. Since you are against the Council, you are against the Pope. It is inadmissable. Therefore we suppress your Order." The reasoning was simple.
And so they exhibited the Ordo of Mgr. Bugnini and created out of thin air the obligation of the new mass, which was imposed by the services of the Vatican and by the bishops of France. It was unfortunately in this manner that the old Mass was abandoned by communities such as the Abbey of Fontgombault, under the pretext that it was necessary to obey the bishops. All of this was imposed by force, by coercion. We also were to be coerced at all costs into abandoning this liturgy and by the same token to close our seminary.
Confronted with this imposture and the illegality with which all of this was accomplished and above all confronted with the spirit in which this persecution was orchestrated, a modernist, progressivist and masonic spirit, we felt duty bound to continue. One cannot accept something which was done illegally, with a bad spirit, against Tradition and against the Church, and for the destruction of the Church.
WE HAVE ALWAYS REFUSED TO COLLABORATE IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CHURCH
This we have always refused to do. Since we refused this, it is obvious that we placed ourselves in opposition to those who appear to be the legal Church. We were the outlaws of the Church and they appeared to respect the law. We believe this appearance to be in exact sense. In fact it is they who have distanced themselves from the legality of the Church and we, on the contrary, who have remained within the legality and validity. Since their actions considered objectively are carried out in a spirit of destruction of the Church, we found ourselves practically speaking under the obligation to act in a manner which appears contrary to the legality of the Church. This is true. It is a strange state of affairs indeed to appear illegal simply by continuing to celebrate the Immemorial Mass and by continuing to ordain priests according to what was the legality up until the Council. And yet this was the reason why I was struck with suspension and why the priests who accepted to be ordained suffered interdiction.
But we did not stop there with our apparently illegal actions with regards to the particulars of the law, such as the hearing of confessions, the blessing of marriages performed in our presence in the dioceses. Many of the things which we have accomplished are of themselves and strictly speaking against the letter of the law, but why did we do these things? Quite simply because we believed that that which was undertaken against us was illegal and that they did not have the right to suppress our Order.
THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE CHURCH IS THE SALVATION OF SOULS
In view of this, we have acted according to the fundamental laws of the Church to save souls, to save the Priesthood, and to continue the Church. It is effectively these fundamental laws which are at stake. We oppose certain particular laws of the Church in order to save these fundamental laws. By using some of these particular laws against us, the fundamental laws are destroyed. It is contrary to the welfare of souls, contrary to the mission of the Church.
The new Code of Canon Law contains articles which are contrary to the mission of the Church. When it is permitted to give Holy Communion to a Protestant, it cannot be denied that is contrary to the mission of the Church. When the affirmation is made that there are two supreme authorities in the Church, it cannot be denied that this is contrary to the mission of the Church. This definition of the Church as the People of God in which all of the ministries basically can be found and in which there is no longer any distinction between the clergy and the lay people, is contrary to the dogma. All of this is contrary to the mission of the Church. The fundamental principles of the Code of Canon Law are being destroyed! How are we expected to submit and obey?
In order to save the fundamental laws of the Church, we are forced not to observe certain particular laws. In all of this who is right, who is wrong? Clearly right are those who pursue the mission of the Church. The particular laws are made to support the fundamental laws, which is the salvation of souls, for the glory of God, for the continuation of the Church. It is perfectly clear.
We are reminded at every opportunity: Mgr Lefebvre is suspended and his priests are suspended, they are not authorized to accomplish their ministry. This is to invoke in this case the particular laws. But they would do well to remember that they are destroying the Church, not the particular laws but the fundamental laws through this new Code of Canon Law which is thoroughly inspired by this bad spirit of modernism which has been expressed in the Council and after the Council.
What we hope for, of course, is that everything would be normal, that we should find ourselves no longer in this apparently illegal situation. But we cannot be accused of having changed anything in the Church. We must always reflect upon and spiritually situate ourselves in the fact that we are of the Church and that we continue the Church. And why do we continue? Because we pursue the goals of the Church. If we can be accused of failing in the application of certain practical laws, no one can say that the Fraternity does not act according to the goals of the Church. No one can deny this.
Now, even in its particular laws, the Church has had the wisdom to always include an open door for the salvation of souls. The Church has foreseen cases which could be extraordinary. This applies to the question of jurisdiction for confessions. Practically, it is the individual who seeks out the priest in order to receive the Sacrament of Penance who gives the priest the jurisdiction through the intermediary of the Code of Canoe Law. Even if an individual were to seek out an excommunicated priest to hear his confession, this priest would receive the necessary jurisdiction (Canon 2261).
For marriage, Canon Law has provided an exception: those who cannot find a properly delegated priest who would marry them according to the spirit of the Church, as their parents were married ‑ and it is obviously a basic right for young men and women to be married in the same rite as their parents and not in a Rite that is not only often disgusting and in an atmosphere that is far from devotional and fitting for such an important a sacred act as the Sacrament of Matrimony. If the engaged young man and woman do not find a priest for a whole month, then they may marry. They are the ministers of the Sacrament, and in such a case they are exempt from the canonical form (Can. 1098 and 209). They can marry in front of witnesses. If there is a priest, he must be present. This priest would not have a special delegation, but he would be present at their marriage, as Canon Law requires, and he will give the Nuptial Blessing to them.
There is also an exception for the Sacrament of Confirmation. The priest has the right to give Confirmation in certain cases. This is also in the Code of Canon Law. The priest must give the Sacrament to someone who is in danger of death if he has not already received it.
A priest can give Confirmation in other exceptional cases. In the Missions, this possibility was extended to cases relating to marriage. The priests had the right before the marriage, if the couple had not yet received it.
I have never said that all modern confirmations were invalid, but one is entitled to raise questions as to the wording which is employed and certainly as regards the oil which is used. This is important after all. I have received many reports from persons who have formally informed me of the expression used by the bishop. These are invalid expressions. Simply "Receive the Holy Spirit," or, "I send you in mission." This may not be frequent, but it has occurred and it is invalid. In any case, there are numerous bishops who feel that Confirmation is a useless Sacrament, that the Holy Ghost has already been given at Baptism, that it is a supplementary ceremony to recall that which was accomplished at baptism. The former archbishop of Chambery explicitly wrote this in his diocesan magazine: "Confirmation does not give the Holy Spirit which we have received at baptism." I showed this magazine to Cardinal Ratzinger and said: "You object to my giving Confirmations, look at what the bishops think of Confirmation." The archbishop in question is now retired but was at the time seventy‑two, seventy‑three years old and was therefore trained in the old school. He had known the Sacrament of Confirmation as it had been taught previously. No doubt the faith of the bishop has no influence on Confirmation, but is it possible to treat the Sacrament in this fashion? It is the same reasoning as that of the Protestants, and it is legitimate to ask if the intention of these bishops is to do that which the Church wants to do.
If we wish to survive and for the blessings of God to continue to descend on the Fraternity, we must remain faithful to these fundamental laws of the Church.
WITHOUT THE MASS EVERYTHING COLLAPSES
If our priests came to abandon the true liturgy, the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the true sacraments, then it would be no longer worth while to continue. It would be suicide!
When Rome asked: "But surely you can adopt the new liturgy and continue your seminaries, that won't make them disappear," I answered: "Yes, it will make our seminaries disappear. They would not be able to accept the new liturgy, it would amount to introducing the poison of the
Conciliar spirit into the community. If others were unable to hold on, it is because they adopted this new liturgy, all of these reforms and this new spirit. As for us, if we accept the same things, we will have the same results."
This is why we must absolutely maintain our traditional line, in spite of the appearance of disobedience and the persecutions of those who use their authority in an unjust and often illegal manner.
We are driven more and more by continually worsening circumstances. If only things seemed to be improving, if we could see tangible signs of a return to Tradition, then everything would be different. But, unfortunately, the situation is worse. The bishops who replace those who retire or who die, have received less theological training. They are imbued with the spirit of the Council, with this Protestant, modernist spirit and it is increasingly serious. Confronted with this continuous worsening of the situation, are we not obliged to take measures which are obviously extraordinary? Our attitude is justified by all of these events. After all, the progressive priests challenge us whenever they can, saying: "You do not have the jurisdiction, you do not have the right to hear confessions." Soon everything that we do would be invalid according to them. It is almost as if to say that our Mass would not be accused of being invalid. This is the state of mind among those fanatical progressives who oppose and insult us. We must not hesitate in responding that it is necessary to take advantage of the laws of the Church which the Church permits in exceptional circumstances of extreme gravity.
God knows that we are confronted with those circumstances!
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
Source
RE: Archbishop Lefebvre: 1986 Conference - Twenty Years of Struggle - Stone - 12-07-2020
The Angelus - May 1987
Archbishop Speaks: Twenty Years of Struggle
A Conference Given by His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre during a Priestly Retreat at Ecône September 1986
A Conference Given by His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre during a Priestly Retreat at Ecône September 1986
Part II
The Fundamental Errors
Painfully affected by the perspective of the meeting on October 27th of representatives of all religions, invited by the Pope, I had addressed a letter to several cardinals, asking them to beg the Sovereign Pontiff to give up this imposture.
It cannot be said that we have failed to use every means to bring about an awareness of the gravity of the situation of the Church in which we find ourselves. In a sermon which I gave in Switzerland I recalled the principal points upon which the Faith finds itself in danger and contradicted by the Pope, the cardinals and, generally speaking, the bishops.
There are now three fundamental errors—of masonic origin—which are publicly professed by the modernists who occupy the Church.
The replacement of the Ten Commandments with the charter of the Rights of Man; this is now the basis for morality. Human rights are practically substituted for the Ten Commandments. Now the principal article of human rights is religious liberty, which was particularly sought after by the Freemasons. Until that time the Catholic religion was the religion; other religions were false. The Freemasons wanted to get rid of this exclusivity. It had to be abolished. Therefore religious liberty was decreed.
False ecumenism, which practically establishes equality among religions. This is something which the Pope manifests in a very real way, on every possible occasion. He, himself, has said that ecumenism was one of the principal objectives of his reign. He has acted in this case against the first article of the Creed and against the First Commandment of the Church.
Finally, the third fundamental error which is now playing is the negation of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ by laicizing the state. The Pope desired, and has practically succeeded in, laicizing society, therefore abolishing the reign of Our Lord over all nations.
If we combine these three fundamental changes which are truly but one, they become the negation or rejection of the uniqueness of the religion of Our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently of His reign. Why is this? In favor of what? Probably of some universal religious sentiment, a sort of syncretism, which seeks to unite all religions.
The situation is therefore extremely grave since it appears that the realization of the masonic ideal has been accomplished by Rome herself, and by the Pope and the cardinals. The Freemasons have always sought this and they are succeeding, not by their personal efforts, but by the actions of the men of the Church themselves. It is sufficient to read the articles written by certain Freemasons, or by those who are close to them, to observe the satisfaction with which they greet this transformation of the Church, these radical changes which have been carried out in the Church since the Council, and which they themselves would have found difficult to conceive possible.
Should Truth Evolve with the Times?
It is not only the Pope who is in question. Cardinal Ratzinger, who is described in the press as being a traditionalist, is in fact, a modernist. It is only necessary to read his book, The Principles of Catholic Theology in order to know what he thinks. He expresses a certain respect for the theories of Hegel when he writes:
Quote:"As of Hegel, being and time co-penetrate each other more and more in philosophical thinking. The being itself responds to the notion of time…truth becomes a function of time; that being which is true is not purely and simply, it is true for a time because it belongs to the evolution of the truth, which is inasmuch as it evolves."
What can we do? How is it possible to discuss anything with someone who reasons in this manner?
As a result, his reaction was not very surprising when I asked him: "But, Your Eminence, there is after all contradiction between Religious Liberty and that which the Syllabusteaches."
"But, Monseigneur," he replied, "we are no longer in the times of the Syllabus!" Any discussion becomes impossible.
This is what Cardinal Ratzinger writes in his book, referring to the Conciliar text on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) under the title "The Church and the World with Regard to the Reception of the Second Vatican Council."
He develops his reasoning over several pages and points out:
Quote:"If one were to seek a global diagnostic of this text, one could say that it is (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and religions in the world) a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a sort of counter-Syllabus."
He therefore recognizes that the text on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), the text on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), and the text on Non-Christians (Nostra Aetate) constitute a sort of "counter-Syllabus." This is what we ourselves told him but, now and without any apparent discomfort, he writes it explicitly.
The Cardinal continues:
Quote:"Harnack, as we all know, considered the Syllabus to be a challenge to his century; the truth is that it drew a line separating the determinant forces of the nineteenth century."
What are these determinant forces of the nineteenth century? It is the French Revolution, of course, with all of its undertakings of destruction. These "determinant forces" are defined by the Cardinal himself as being "the political and scientific conceptions of liberalism." And he continues:
Quote:"In the modernist controversy, this double border was once again reinforced and fortified.
"Since then, undoubtedly, many things had changed. The new ecclesiastical policies of Pius XI had afforded a certain opening towards the liberal concept of the State. Exegesis and history of the Church, in a silent and perseverant struggle had adopted more and more of the postulants of liberal science, while on the other hand, liberalism, during the great political changes of the twentieth century, was forced to accept notable corrections." (p. 426)
"As a result, and starting in central Europe, the unilateral attachment to the positions adopted by the Church on the initiative of Pius IX and Pius X which were conditioned by their situation against the new period of history which was opened by the French Revolution, had been to a large extent corrected vis facti, but a fundamental determination of the new relationships with the world as it existed since 1789 were still missing." (p. 427)
This fundamental determination was to be that of the Council.
The Cardinal continues:
Quote:"In reality, in those countries with a strong Catholic majority, a pre-revolutionary view prevailed: almost no one today denies that the Spanish and Italian concordats sought to preserve too much of a world view which had ceased to correspond to reality. Similarly, almost no one will deny that this attachment to outdated perception of the relationships between the Church and State corresponded to similar anachronisms in the domain of education and with regards to attitudes towards modern historical and critical methods." (p. 427)
In this way it becomes clear what is the spirit of Cardinal Ratzinger, who adds:
Quote:"Only a thorough research into the diverse methods with which the different parts of the Church accomplished their reception of the modern world could entangle the complicated network of causes which contributed to the shaping of the pastoral constitution, and this is the only way to clarify the drama of its historical influence. Let us simply say that the text plays the part of a counter-Syllabus to the extent that it represents an attempt at official reconciliation between the Church and the world as it had become since 1789." (p. 427)
All of this is clear and corresponds exactly to that which we have asserted all along. We refuse! We do not wish to be the heirs of 1789!
Quote:"On the other hand, only this perspective can give light to the ghetto complex which we discussed at the beginning; while on the other hand, only this perspective allows us to understand this strange relationship between the Church and the world: by 'world' one must understand, after all, the spirit of modern times, in front of which the group consciousness of the Church felt itself quite separated, and after a relationship resembling by turns a hot and then cold war, now sought dialogue and cooperation."
One can only conclude that the Cardinal has completely lost sight of the concept of the Apocalypse of the struggle between truth and error, between good and evil. Now we are expected to seek dialogue between truth and error. We are supposed to find the confrontation between the Church and the world to be strangely incomprehensible. Further in his writings, the Cardinal defines his thoughts in this way: "The Church and the world are like the body and the soul."
Cardinal Ratzinger is the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, previously referred to as the Holy Office. What can we hope for the Church from someone who is in charge of defending the Faith, but has such thoughts?
As for the Pope, he has, in a different manner, the same spirit. Of course he is Polish but the basic ideas are the same. The same principles and the same training inspire him. This is the reason why they feel no shame nor horror, in doing what they do, whereas we are frightened. According to liberalism and modernism, as we have seen, religion is an inner feeling.
Our Duty is to Come to a Judgment
And so, from that day when, disregarding Canon Law, Mgr. Mamie (supported by Rome), suppressed us, we have ignored that suppression and we have apparently disobeyed. But it was our duty to disobey because they wanted to force us into the spirit of 1789, the spirit of liberalism, the spirit of the counter-Syllabus. We have refused and we continue to refuse. It was such men as Cardinal Villot, imbued with liberalism, and Rome, also imbued with liberalism, who have condemned us. But by acting in this manner they have condemned Tradition, they have condemned Truth.
We have rejected this condemnation because we consider it null and inspired by the modernist spirit. That which we do and that which we continue to do is nothing other than working to maintain Tradition. We therefore found ourselves in an apparent situation of disobedience to legality, but we have continued to ordain priests and to give priests to the faithful for the salvation of their souls. These priests have exercised and continue to exercise their ministry under an appearance of disobedience to the letter of the law, but in obedience to the spirit of the law. We will continue to do this as long as the Good Lord permits.
We have not created this situation in the Church which is continually worsening under incredible conditions. No one could have imagined ten years ago, before the coming of Pope John Paul II, that a Sovereign Pontiff would one day perform this ceremony at Assisi. The very idea would never have occurred. No one would have thought that he would go to a synagogue and deliver that abominable speech! No one would have imagined it! Similarly it would have been impossible to even conceive of what he did in India. All of that would have seemed inconceivable.
We Want to Continue the Church
Thus we — who are solidly established in the Church, we who have received the official approbation of the Church — want to continue the Church, to continue the priesthood and to save souls.
Let it be understood—I do not say that the Fraternity is the Church, but we are of the Church, as have been the Sulpicians, the Lazarists, the foreign missions and so many others. We were recognized as such and so we remain. We do not want to change.
There is but one Church, of which we are a strong branch, full of life, approved by the Church absolutely like the other societies were before and which are now, unfortunately, in their great majority dying of a natural death.
The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X was brought up, we believe, providentially by God, to be a lighthouse, a light for the entire world, in order to save the true priesthood, the true Sacrifice of the Mass, the Doctrine and the Tradition of the Church and the Truth in order to bring salvation to souls. We live in truly exceptional times, times which we believe to be apocalyptic. We must implore God, pray to our patron Saint Pius X, in order to receive the graces which fortify us.
The Good Lord almost forced me into founding the Society of Saint Pius X, into establishing this Order, which clearly seems to have received His blessings in its wonderful development. To deny this is to deny the evidence. Anyone can see it.
Many of our priests now have more than eight or ten years of priesthood, and the number of Catholics who gravitate to them and are happy to have them is considerable. How many times have I received letters or in passing at the priories, compliments such as, "Oh, Monseigneur, your priests! We are so fortunate to have your priests! What good they do for us. How they help us and our families to remain Catholic. How can we thank you?"
How can we fail to recognize the actions of Providence when we see these vocations which come from around the world, in spite of all the attacks and the subversive enterprises which seek to demolish what we have done. There is no doubt that the devil has done all within his power to divide us, to break us apart—this is obvious. Unfortunately, and to a limited extent, he has managed to do that: too many are those who have abandoned us. I have ordained 306 priests in fifteen years, including fifty-six for monasteries or communities friendly to our cause. Naturally, the first years, there were not many ordinations. The first important ordinations started in 1975. In eleven years, this represents a sizeable number, and this in spite of all opposition, the persecutions of our seminaries, in spite of the discouragement which they sought to provoke among our seminarians, which succeeded in some cases in turning seminarians away from their vocation.
Let us be united, courageous; let us be firm; let us continue. The Good Lord will certainly bless us. We should not fear, nor be frightened. But we must be resolved to defend and to transmit our faith.
Louis Veuillot said:
Quote:"Two powers are alive and fighting against each other in the world—Revelation and Revolution."
We have chosen to remain faithful to Revelation, while the Conciliarists have chosen Revolution. This choice is the reason of struggle for twenty years.
Let us pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Queen, to whom the Society is consecrated, that she help us.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]