12-07-2020, 07:59 AM
The Angelus - May 1987
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:
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:
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:
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:
This fundamental determination was to be that of the Council.
The Cardinal continues:
In this way it becomes clear what is the spirit of Cardinal Ratzinger, who adds:
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!
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:
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]
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]
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre