On the Duty of Resisting Error

[Stone]

One Who Is Silent before Error Is Repulsive to God

Pope Leo XIII exhorted us in Sapientiae Christinae of January 10, 1890, to defend and proclaim the truth of the Catholic Faith at all times without fail. To safeguard the integrity of the Faith, he insists, is a duty that belongs to each one of the faithful and not just those with power of rule. Further, one who keeps silence in face of error is repulsive to God and unworthy of eternal salvation. These are important lessons for the progressivist clergy and laymen in our days.


Pope Leo XIII:

But in the same matter, touching Christian Faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance necessary at all times in the interest of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days.

Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion it is, as we have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping.

But when necessity compels, not only those who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of the Faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains, each one is under obligation to show forth his faith either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.

To recoil before an enemy or to keep silence when from all sides such clamor is raised against truth, belongs to a man either devoid of character or one who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is shameful and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of Faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good.

Moreover, lack of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions. And, by always exerting themselves more strenuously, they might count upon being successful.


Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae
of January 10, 1890, n. 14

Adapted from here.

[Stone]

Fighting the Revolution is a Religious Duty
by Mgr de Segur

There are three degrees in the Revolution:

1. The destruction of the Church , as authority and religious society, protector of other authorities and other societies; At this first stage, which concerns us directly, the Revolution is the negation of the Church, erected in principle and formulated in law; the separation of church and state for the purpose of discovering the state and depriving it of its fundamental support;

2. The destruction of thrones and legitimate political authority , an inevitable consequence of the destruction of Catholic authority. This destruction is the last word of the revolutionary principle of modern democracy and what is now called the sovereignty of the people;

3. The destruction of society , that is, of the organization it has received from God; in other words, the destruction of the rights of the family and property, in favor of an abstraction which the revolutionary doctors call the state. It is socialism , last word of the perfect revolution, last revolt, destruction of the last right. To this degree, the Revolution is, or rather would be, the total destruction of the divine order on earth, the perfect reign of Satan in the world.

Clearly formulated for the first time by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, then in 89 and in 93 by the French Revolution, the Revolution proved from the outset the bitter enemy of Christianity; she struck the Church with a fury reminiscent of the persecutions of paganism; she killed the Bishops, massacred the priests, the Catholics; it has closed or destroyed the churches, dispersed the religious orders, dragged in the mud the crosses and the relics of the saints; his rage has spread throughout Europe; she broke all the traditions, and for a moment she believed she destroyed Christianity, which she scornfully called an old and fanatical superstition.

On all these ruins, she inaugurated a new regime of atheistic laws, societies without religion, peoples and kings absolutely independent; for a century it has been growing and spreading throughout the world, destroying everywhere the social influence of the Church, perverting intelligences, slandering the clergy, and undermining the whole edifice of faith. From the religious point of view, it can be defined: the legal negation of the reign of Jesus Christ on earth, the social destruction of the Church.

Fighting the Revolution is therefore an act of faith, a religious duty in the first place. It is moreover an act of good citizen and honest man; because it is defending the fatherland and the family. If honest political parties fight against their point of view, we Christians must fight it from a much higher point of view, to defend what is dearer to us than life.


Mgr de Segur - The Revolution Explained to Young People (1861)

Adapted and translated from here.

[Stone]

The Faithful Are Permitted & Commanded to Resist Bad Doctrine

Influenced by the progressivist idea that no one is allowed to judge anyone else - an idea so widespread in America that is becoming almost a paranoia - many tradionalist Catholics become insecure to say that a doctrine or a person is wrong and that it or he goes against the past teaching of the Church.

In the text below, Fr. Sarda y Salvany makes it clear that the layman has not only the right but the duty to make weighty judgments on important matters of faith based on human reason duly enlightened by God.


Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany:

Yes, human reason, as the theologians say, has a place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith. It is false to pretend that the inferior light of the human understanding illuminated by God cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light of faith.

Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to use reason to serve their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is, thus, by using their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect or measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine, presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it.

They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can legitimately hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church.

Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Oportet allatrare canes. "It behooves watchdogs to bark" very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions.

- Liberalism Is a Sin, chap. 23, TAN Books, 1995, pp. 153-154.


Adapted from here.

[Stone]

The following article explains why error must be refuted and also shows why the SSPX, which once performed this duty, should be doing it today.

"The Critical Ministry of the Society" by Father François-Marie Chautard
(The Chardonnet No. 239, June 2008)

Even if we have to work from the inside, can we not keep a respectful silence on the modern errors spread by the authorities while preaching sound doctrine?

Actually, respectful silence is only morally possible in order to avoid a worse evil. The story of St. Pius X provides us with an example with L’Action Française, when he felt that a condemnation was inappropriate and would have resulted in far more inconveniences than advantages. However, in the present case, the circumstances are such that the inconvenience resulting from silence (neglect for the common good of the Faith and scandal for the faithful) is worse than the inconvenience resulting from the denunciation of error (the apparent ostracism by the visible society of the conciliar Church).

So the answer lies in one word: the good of the Faith. The good of the Faith today involves the condemnation of error for two reasons:

- to keep it yourself. Experience proves, unfortunately, that it is not enough to preach the Truth, but that errors also need to be condemned.

- to prevent the fall of those who might be tempted to succumb to it.

Let us add the following arguments which weigh in the balance and show that a true love of the Faith cannot be combined today with a respectful silence:

1. The Truth requires the condemnation of error: "preachers of truth must do two things, namely exhort in sacred doctrine, and refute contradiction" (1).

2. The good of the Faith postulates this public condemnation of error even if the authority might fall: "In case of necessity, where the Faith is in danger, anyone is bound to proclaim his faith, either to instruct or encourage the other faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers "(2)," if the Faith were endangered, superiors should be rebuked by inferiors, even in public. Hence Paul, who was subject to Peter, rebuked him for this reason "(3).

3. The Truth is better highlighted by distinction from error and the condemnation of it (4).

4. The Truth must not be hidden through fear of criticism which will always exist whatever happens: "It is better to cause scandal than to abandon the Truth " (5).

5. The practice which consists of only searching for traditional passages in the Magisterium (a kind of intellectual scanner which only detects traditional passages) is basically the same which supports ecumenism: to see only the good aspects of religions (so as to not risk harming an agreement which would favor reconciliation).

6. The rational foundations of our position are based on the betrayal of Rome and Her abandonment of Tradition. Mentioning only the good side of Rome would lead gradually to forgetting the reasons for our combat and to fall imperceptibly into the combatted errors.

7. The best service that we can give Rome is to not be silent on the conciliar errors and to stand firm. What would one say of a wife or of children who would not warn their husband and father, if he started down a deadly path? Wouldn’t this be not love, but a servile and cruel cowardice?

8. This clarity of exposition and hence this condemnation of error is made more necessary because of the increased confusion in the Church and in particular in traditional circles. This confusion is explained by:

- the bone of contention, Ecclesia Dei, which after more than 20 years, does not cease to carry out its goal: to upset convictions and divide forces.

- a range of increasingly varied doctrinal nuances and therefore a greater confusion of minds, minds that are struggling to form an idea of the situation, which was not the case when both "camps" were well-divided;

- a youth which did not experience the combat of the veterans, did not have to position itself, and therefore needs more precision;

- a loss in some people of the habit of fighting, and with it, of reflecting on the reasons for it, since the last crisis, dating back to 1988, allowed convictions to be renewed.

9. Mentioning only the good side of Rome would lead first to believing that the crisis is reaching its end, then in a short time, to not understanding the refusal of the authorities of the Society in concluding an agreement with Rome, and thus diminishing this force of resistance.

That being said on this critical duty, it remains to be seen whether those who rally have at least kept their starting positions.


Notes

(1) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Comm. in 2.Cor. 2, Lesson 3, No. 72.

(2) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II.II.q.3, a.2, ad 2.

(3) Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II. II.q.33, a.4, ad 2.

(4) This is the procedure of St. Thomas which puts forth objections, the assertion of the Truth, and the answer to the objections.

(5) Saint Gregory, Hom. 7 on Ezechiel.


Source:  laportelatine.org/district/france/bo/20ansapres/critique/critique.php