| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 219 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 215 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google, Yandex
|
| Latest Threads |
St. Alphonsus Liguori: Da...
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
10 hours ago
» Replies: 7
» Views: 9,956
|
Easter Week [Monday thru ...
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
10 hours ago
» Replies: 8
» Views: 24,012
|
Pope Francis has died age...
Forum: Pope Francis
Last Post: Stone
10 hours ago
» Replies: 1
» Views: 91
|
Fr. Hesse: Decline of Cha...
Forum: Add'nl Clergy
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 05:45 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 96
|
Keeping the Faith Without...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 05:43 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 96
|
Easter Sunday
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:52 AM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 20,160
|
St. Gregory the Great: Se...
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:47 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 6,628
|
Dom Guéranger: The Histor...
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:45 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 4,748
|
Season of Paschal Tide
Forum: Easter
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:44 AM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 12,455
|
Fr. Hewko's: Easter Sunda...
Forum: April 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
04-18-2025, 09:33 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 169
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1990 Conference Extract in Albias, France |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-07-2021, 05:25 PM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
 |
Extract from a talk given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Albias (Tarn et Garonne, France), 10th October 1990
“What can one do against this profound deviation from the Catholic Faith within the Church? One can only train good priests.”
Ladies and Gentlemen!
Many thanks to Father Marziac and Father Denis Roch for their short talks through which you have already gained a glimpse of the atmosphere which has existed for twenty years. Father Marziac also talked about Senegal. Thus it would cover already forty years.
We have experienced difficult and tragic moments. Sometimes I feel obliged to summarise my life. Father Londos could probably do that even better. He is five years older than me, almost a century old.
We had to live through three wars. The war of 1914 to 1918, the war from 1939 to 1945 and the war from 1962 to 1965. You might say that no war took place between 1962 and 1965. I am not mistaken. It was the most horrible war which we have lived through. The death of the body is better than the death of souls. This war represented at the same time a climax, a conclusion and a beginning. It was the conclusion of a truly diabolical enterprise and the beginning of a true revolution within the Church. We want to stay Catholic. Because of that it was impossible for us to accept these revolutionary changes without having to forsake our Faith.
The facts show the horrendous consequences – the introduction of revolutionary ideas into the interior of the Church through men of the Church. These men used the Second Vatican Council in order to help these revolutionary ideas to victory. In my opinion this is the most grievous fact of the last 30 years.
There were always enemies outside the Church. There were also enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He had hardly appeared in His official life, when He was already in opposition with the Pharisees and Scribes. During His three years of public ministry they persecuted Him and nailed Him to the cross. Since then this war has not stopped and it is being waged with all means against Our Lord. You will know the history of the Church well enough. You know what the Church had to suffer through the centuries from men who wanted to continue the downfall of the Church and of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Although this situation was known, it took place outside the Church. People who had a hostile disposition towards the Church left it through heresies and schisms. Today the Church is in a much more serious and horrible situation. The enemies are inside the Church. Whether these people are aware of their actions is not important. It is also unimportant whether they act with intent or whether they are true enemies of the Church. Only God alone knows that.
They do act however as enemies of the Church.
This became obvious during the Council. I have often given as an example the violent opposition between two representatives of the Church: Cardinal Ottaviani, who stood for the Catholic Church and Her twenty centuries’ old tradition, and Cardinal Bea who supported the liberal and modern spirit. This liberal and modern spirit could already be found within the Church during the time of Pope Pius X, who therefore had to condemn it.
During the last session of the Central Preparatory Commission of the Council, I witnessed this opposition. Two ideologies clashed violently against each other. On the one side were people who represented the revolutionary ideas of Human Rights and have acquired their principles, or wanted to acquire them. With this kind of profound atheism man only considers his freedom. He no longer wants to consider God’s Commandments and does not want anymore to contemplate himself in relation to God. He wants to be independent from God and the Church. Cardinal Bea represented this liberation theology. The text which he had prepared entitled “Religious Liberty” was the best proof of that. Cardinal Ottaviani prepared a text on the same topic however entitled “Religious Tolerance”. The Church tolerates error and false religions, she does not place them however on the same level as the true religion.
Traditionally the Church claimed to be the only true religion which was founded by God himself, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, all other religions are wrong. One has to be a missionary in order to convert the followers of false religions, so that they can be saved. This was always the Faith of the Church. The raison d’etre of missions in the Church is to convert souls and not to tell souls that their religion is as good as the Catholic Faith. The ideologies of these two Cardinals violently clashed together. In some way it represents the opposition within the Church. Cardinal Ottaviani has openly voiced his opinion in front of Cardinal Bea. He told him that he did not agree with his text and that he had no right to compose it. Cardinal Bea equally rose and replied that he also could not accept Cardinal Ottaviani’s text in principle. Who was right? Cardinal Bea or Cardinal Ottaviani? The revolution or the Catholic Church? The revolution has risen against the Catholic Church. There was the opinion that a final line had to be drawn under clericalism, the authority of the Church and the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Church could only condemn the principles of the revolution if it wanted to stay loyal to Our Lord Jesus Christ. During the 19th Century and during the first half of the 20th century, all popes have acted that way until Pope Pius XII. All these popes have condemned the principles of the revolution. Within the Central Preparatory Commission a group of Cardinals was formed who wanted to accept together with Cardinal Bea the principles of the revolution. Cardinal Ruffini rose and regretted the violent opposition of his confreres whose content was of fundamental importance for the Faith and the teaching of the Church. He wanted to present this matter to the higher authority, the pope himself. Pope John XXIII usually chaired our meetings. He was not present at that meeting. Cardinal Bea was against this suggestion and asked for a vote. He wanted to know which Cardinals voted for him and which voted against him. Then, a vote was held. The 70 Cardinals who were present were divided in two camps. One half voted for Cardinal Bea, the others for Cardinal Ottaviani. In general, the German, Dutch, French and all Cardinals from USA and the UK voted for Cardinal Bea. Cardinal Ottaviani received the votes from the Italian, Spanish and South American Cardinals, in general from Cardinals from the Latin countries who still had a sense for the tradition of the Church.
In this way the council started. The last session of the Central Preparatory Commission ended with a violent opposition between two groups of Cardinals. One group, headed by Cardinal Bea was leaning towards the revolutionary ideas, which means the atheism of the state instead of the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over society. The other group followed Cardinal Ottaviani. They stood for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over society. Indeed, they tolerated the false religions but did not put them on the same level as the true religion, as Our Lord Jesus Christ, which the Church regards as God, and of whom she claims, He is God. In this way, the revolution as a matter of fact entered into interior of the Church.
In order to understand this situation one has to look at history since the French Revolution. Thanks to Liberalism and Sillonism, these ideas have spread within the Church and slowly prevailed in the different European countries. All false ideas have penetrated into the interior of the Church. Not for nothing did Pope Pius IX condemn the ideas of the French Revolution in his encyclical “Quanta Cura” and in his “Syllabus”. Then, Pope St. Pius X condemned Modernism which was nothing else than the continuation of revolutionary ideas, in his encyclical “Pascendi dominici gregis” and in his decree “Lamentabili”. All these false ideas originated in the revolutionary principles.
In 1962 the Church allowed Herself to stand in opposition to the thirteen popes who had ruled since the French Revolution and who had publicly condemned all errors resulting from it. With whom will the members of the Council side? The tradition of the Church and therefore those thirteen popes who have issued the condemnation of these revolutionary ideas? Or will they follow those revolutionary ideas which spread in the interior of the Church? The liberals won.
They dominated the council through the support of the popes John XXIII and Paul VI. The Church in some way allows this drama to take place publicly. She endorses Human Rights and the revolutionary principles in the interior of the Church. On the other hand, she disapproves of the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over civil society. Thereby she only asks for the common right which is also granted to the other religions. Thus, all other religions are equally considered as valuable as the Catholic religion. This causes naturally deplorable consequences for Christian families and for the Faith of the people. How did these changes in the Church come about? The council approved of the liberals. All instructions and rules which were given after the council were geared towards putting the new revolutionary principle into practice. The Council was against authority, especially against the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as against the authority of the pope, the bishops, priests and family fathers. All authorities were practically decapitated. One had to give men freedom of conscience. The conscience of man was glorified, which in its truest sense represents the basic principle of Human Rights. Man has a conscience.
He is therefore allowed to decide over his future, his life, his thoughts, his religion and morals. The result is a shift. On the one hand there is still authority, which comes from God. This authority is put into effect through various authorities, even through civic society, in order to lay down God’s law and to encourage men to abide it. On the other hand there is liberation. Man liberates himself from law and from authority. There is the total anarchy in which we presently live. What will the bishops and cardinals do against this situation? The council practically divided itself. 250 bishops joined the liberal cardinals. Further 250 united themselves to defend the traditional ideas. Why could the liberals win? There were 2500 bishops present at the council. A large number of bishops therefore would be the ones who decided which way the council developed.
Around 1800 bishops watched the pope to see which side he would choose. If the pope were to choose the liberals, they would also choose the side of the liberals. Should the pope choose the side of the conservatives, these bishops would also side with the conservatives. The pope granted his approbation to the liberals. This decision caused dreadful and horrendous events. One effect of this decision was that the Council was not prepared to condemn Communism. 450 bishops submitted an application to achieve the condemnation of communism. This application was refused. However, sometimes a petition was granted which was only submitted by two or three bishops.
When the liberals took office after the council, Cardinal Ottaviani was removed from his post. Likewise, many traditional minded cardinals who felt wounded by this handed in their resignation. Some died out of sorrow over it. I knew Archbishop Morcillo from Madrid and Archbishop MacQuaid from Dublin very well. They were my friends. When they had to witness what was going on during the Council they died out of sorrow over it. They have felt, seen and witnessed the ruin of the Church and the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. What took place at the Second Vatican Council was the suicide of the Catholic Church. They were right. We realise it every day. The Church commits suicide. That does not mean the Catholic Church itself, but the men of the Church who reign inside the Church. They undermine the life of the Church and they are going to ruin Her completely. Today the bishops are discussing priestly vocations and the training for the priesthood. They won’t reach any result as long as they don’t define the priest as what he really is. They do not want to specify a definition. Actually, they do not want to specify anything anymore. A definition has its consequences, asks for changes and a return to tradition.
There is no hope of a return of a great vitality of the Church as long as there is no return to Tradition, to the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to the fundamental principles of the Church. They are committing treason against Our Lord Jesus Christ! They do not want His reign any more, neither over the souls, nor over the families or society! Where Our Lord Jesus Christ does not reign anymore there is disorder which will lead to total ruin.
Unfortunately one can summarise the council with these words. What could I have done had I remained bishop of Tulle? Suppose I had resolved to keep Tradition. After the Council I would have returned as bishop of Tulle into my diocese. Half of the clergy maybe even two thirds would have been against me. With certainty also half of the faithful. The results of the Council were overpowering. One has to change – the liturgy, the catechism, the atmosphere. One has to grant freedom. The laity need to receive more room within the church. How can one govern a diocese if more than half of the clergy and faithful are against you?
Many bishops which were responsible for their dioceses and wanted to fight handed in their resignation. The authorities accepted these resignations immediately, of course. They were happy to replace the traditional bishops with a new bishop who represented the conciliar, modern spirit of freedom and revolution within the Church. It was difficult to resist. Bishop de Castro Mayer in Brazil managed to resist. He had to look after 29 priests in his diocese. When he left his diocese, 27 of these 29 priests followed him. Thus it was possible in the diocese of Campos to uphold Tradition. Over a certain period of time, resistance was possible in unimportant dioceses.
However, I am convinced that such a resistance would not have been possible in Europe. I myself fought for Tradition at the council together with 250 bishops. We did everything to contain the devastation. Yet, we couldn’t prevent the passage of the revolutionary texts concerning religious liberty which represents the fundamental principle of Human Rights. Furthermore we couldn’t prevent the document on the Constitution of the Church in the World which also contains the application of revolutionary ideas within the Church. We only managed to modify some minor points.
At this time I was not in charge of any diocese anymore. But I was Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers. I had to hand in my resignation. I found myself in an impossible situation within the congregation. A large number of members rose up against me as I wanted to preserve tradition and the pre-conciliar training of the seminarians and priests. I wanted to preserve the thomistic instruction according to St. Thomas Aquinas which was recommended by all popes before the Council. Within the congregation I wanted to keep a certain discipline, amongst others the prohibition to watch television in our communities. Almost two thirds of the members were against me.
All congregations were bound to convene an extraordinary General Chapter in order to adjust to the Council and the new spirit of freedom. In 1968 all congregations came together to discuss in which way the constitutions should be changed and the spirit of the council should be implemented. This revolutionary spirit of freedom revealed itself in the abandonment of all traditions, the religious dress, the traditional mass, the abandonment of the traditional doctrine as well as in the abolition of the normal relationship between subjects and superiors. It was no longer possible for superiors to issue orders. They always had to ask their subjects for their opinions. It was an inextricable situation. I give you an example which took place in all congregations. When I arrived at the General Chapter, I was told “We don’t want the Superior General to chairs the General Chapter any more.” I responded, “Our constitution says that the Superior General needs to lead the Chapter. A change in the constitution can only take place by submitting a request to the Congregation for Orders in Rome.” I received the answer, “We want a triumvirate to chair our chapter.” I was elected for six years as Superior General. It was therefore out of question to change Superior Generals. I explained to the members that I am not going to accept this decision as it contradicts the definitions of our congregation as well as the spirit of Rome. I therefore asked for a vote.
The vote was against me. Three members of the triumvirate received the votes. Due to this fact I went to Rome to the Congregation of Religious. Rome will have to agree to such a decision. I wanted to find out whether Rome would accept it. The prefect was travelling in South America. I therefore went to his deputy, his secretary, the second person in the congregation. I explained to him what had happened in our congregation during the course of the General Chapter and asked for his advice. He said to me, “Monseigneur, remember, the Council has taken place! One has to take into account that the situation will change now. Your members certainly don’t have the right to act in that way. In my opinion you should however tolerate this. I advise you to travel to America and go for a walk. I have also told this to the General Superior of the Lazarists.”
In light of these conditions, I handed in my resignation. It was impossible to lead a congregation which was in the midst of a revolution. I would have been forced to put my signature underneath all the changes. It was not my intention that the history of the congregation would read, “Mgr. Lefebvre introduced the revolution inside the congregation.” I addressed my resignation letter to Paul VI. He replied within a week. “Your resignation was accepted. You are relieved from your duties as Superior General.” In my opinion Providence expected this to force me to take a decision. I was free and did not have to govern a diocese or a congregation anymore. Since I was already 65 years old, I could have requested to retire. Our dear Lord did not want that, even though I would have had the right to do so, as I had already spent 30 years in the missions.
At this time, some seminarians visited me who asked me for help. They explained to me the situation in the seminaries. I had then taken a small flat with the sisters of the Lithuanian College. I lived secluded and thought I would be able to conclude my days in peace there. These seminarians however didn’t let go. “Monseigneur, do something! The liturgy is exposed to the freedom of the seminarians. Every week another group of seminarians is allowed to decide the liturgy for the following week. Everything was changed, the Holy Mass, the prayers, the canon. The seminarians wear their cassock less and less and are allowed to go out at night. There is the greatest liberty. We want to become true priests. We cannot bear such a situation.”
What should I do for those few seminarians? Amongst them was Fr. Aulagnier and Fr. Cottard. I knew Bishop Charriere of Fribourg in Switzerland very well. I wanted to try to accommodate these seminarians at the university in Fribourg. They would be better off. Bishop Charriere would certainly be ready to accept them in his inter-diocesan seminary.
I went to Fribourg. Bishop Charriere responded to my question. “Monseigneur, our seminaries are gone. Don’t put your seminarians into my seminary. There is no discipline anymore. A proper formation is not possible.” His answer astonished me. I asked him what I should do with those seminarians. He advised me to build up a seminary myself. I was already 65 years old – an impossible idea. I told him that I would give them into his seminary. He responded, “I give you the permission to rent a house in my diocese. Settle down and train the seminarians yourself.”
Providence apparently wanted me to put this plan into action. At the beginning there were nine seminarians. At the end of the academic year there were only two left, Aulagnier and Tissier de Mallerais, today an auxiliary bishop. I said to them, “The seminary cannot be continued with only two seminarians. Our dear Lord does not want it to be continued. I am going to have to close the seminary. They will go to the seminary of Bishop Charriere.”
I spoke these words in May. Already in June I received eleven application letters. Eleven seminarians asked me to receive and train them. I faced the question whether I should continue this work. I would have loved to close the seminary. The two seminarians, Abbe Aulagnier and Abbe Tissier de Mallerais were against my plan and urged me to accept those eleven seminarians who applied to the seminary. Thus, I decided to continue the seminary.
We bought a house in Fribourg. Subsequently, the seminary was moved to Écône. Seminarians from all over the world and professors came to our seminary. Father Roch has already spoken about our beginnings. I thought to myself, if the Society is meant to be international one day, it is a sign that God wanted to preserve Tradition in the whole world. How should we obtain this goal? Advertising was out of question for me.
We were able to continue Tradition unmolested from 1970 to 1975. The French bishops heard about us and were very indignant. They did not want any priests who were wearing the cassock, were teaching outdated things, and were celebrating an outdated mass. Thus, our seminary received a canonical visit. I lodged a complaint with Cardinal Villot in Rome. He quite clearly stood in opposition to me.
Rome prepared for the fight, and wanted a visitation and my condemnation. Bishop Mamie, the successor of Bishop Charriere sent a letter to me which contained the following, “Close your seminary and immediately dismiss all your professors!” I received this in writing at the beginning of May 1975. Should I really close down the seminary? I could not close it. A bishop does not have the right to issue such a decision. If a bishop has approved of something, his successor cannot revoke this. One needs to formally apply for such an intention in Rome, a decree needs to be issued in order to close down a house. This procedure is mandatory to avoid a lack of stability in the houses. I possessed the approval of Bishop Charriere. Thus, Bishop Mamie could not annul the Society nor close the seminary. Only Rome could do that.
I refused to close down the seminary as I regarded this approach as illegal. I had lodged a complaint with Rome and payed the fees for it. My complaint was accepted. I engaged a solicitor. Cardinal Villot wrote a personal letter to Cardinal Staffa, the prefect of the Apostolic Signature, the highest court in Rome. In this letter he told him not to initiate proceedings. Again, this was unlawful. Justice must be exercised freely. If the governmental power interferes with the judicial power then there is tyranny. That is inadmissible. Clearly, Cardinal Staffa obeyed Cardinal Villot’s prohibition. Since this whole procedure was in the highest degree illegal, I continued to ordain priests. In the years 1975 and 1976 I also ordained priests. I received a written warning from Rome which threatened me with suspension. The whole proceeding was illegal. Maybe you are of the opinion that I am obstinate. I think however, that I fulfilled the will of God. I am also convinced that Providence demanded of me to continue in that way. I didn’t do this for me, but for the Church so that in future there are still priests at Her disposal.
The infamous Mass at Lille should have been celebrated in front of 50 people. The organisers announced 500 people. In the following weeks people were speaking of 5000. In the end, 20,000 people from all over the world attended. If I remember correctly, a special congress took place in Paris in which people from all over the world participated. All these people rushed to Lille when they read in the newspapers “The suspended bishop is going to celebrate Mass.” All over the world the media reported about the suspended bishop and his forthcoming Mass.
My sister who lived in Columbia wrote to me that every day there was an article about me in the newspapers. I didn’t know anything about this. Also from Australia, I received letters with the same content. I was certain that this was coming from providence. Providence wanted that we and our Resistance in favour of Tradition and the Catholic Faith might be made known all over the world.
All over the world this piece of news raised interesting questions. Many young men wanted to join our seminaries. We received vocations from the whole world. We had to open new seminaries – in the United States, In Germany, Australia and South America. So many people wanted to keep Tradition and the Catholic Faith. We were facing everywhere the same problems.
Frightened families could not believe that this revolution in the Church was in accordance with the true, Catholic spirit, but that it was the spirit of the demon, the devil which had entered the Church. We did not want to follow it but simply wanted to stay Catholic. That was a sign! The progress of the Society was unbelievable. With the generosity of all the Catholic faithful who wanted to keep Tradition we were able to open up priories, colleges and churches. Many priests reacted in the same way. They wanted to keep the Catholic Faith and not abandon themselves to the changes. The Faith which they had learnt in their seminaries was certainly true. They did not want to change, to become modernists or Protestants. It was out of the question for them to teach a catechism which was not a Catholic catechism anymore. They wanted to keep wearing the cassock, and celebrate the Mass of all times. Everywhere one could witness this reaction. Of course we might have wished to see a stronger and more significant reaction. But we have always to remember how hard it was for many priests.
I saw many priests and priors crying out of sorrow when they realised the changes in the Church. They realised that this meant the complete collapse of the priesthood. They saw their confreres going away and getting married. Clearly they recognised that the catechisms were not Catholic anymore. The altars were demolished in order to exchange them with a table, on which they turned to the people in order to carry out a kind of distribution. They were completely aghast. Many handed in their resignation. It was not possible for them to accept this situation. Had we been able to see the sorrow in the hearts of many priests and bishops we would have truly been shocked. The faithful were in a similar situation. The true catechism and true religion was not taught to the children anymore.
This resistance in the Church is normal if one has to survive in an organism. We are the Catholic Church and continue the Catholic Church. The other side are the ones moving away from the Church and thus becoming schismatic. All schismatic novelties were introduced through these people. I assure you that these people do not possess the Catholic Faith any more.
What can one do against this profound deviation from the Catholic Faith within the Church? One can only train good priests.
|
|
|
| Prayers in Honor of the Five Wounds - Devotion to the Passion by St. Alphonsus Liguori |
|
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-07-2021, 03:12 PM - Forum: In Honor of Our Lord
- No Replies
|
 |
DEVOTION TO THE PASSION
Prayers in Honor of the Five Wounds.
(Taken from St. Alphonsus’ Prayer-Book – pages 453)
O my Jesus, by the pain Thou dist suffer when Thy left Hand was nailed to the cross, give me true sorrow for my sins.
O my Jesus, by the pain which Thou didst suffer when Thy right Hand was nailed to the cross, grant me perseverance in Thy grace.
O my Jesus, by the pain which Thou didst suffer when Thy left Foot was nailed to the cross, save me from the pains of hell.
O my Jesus, by the pain which Thou didst suffer when Thy right Foot was nailed to the cross, grant me the grace of eternally loving Thee in heaven.
O my Jesus, by the Wound made in Thine adorable Heart, procure for me the happiness of ever loving Thee in this life and in the next. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Bishop de Mallerais [1988]: The Conciliar Strategy to Marginalize Traditional Priests |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-07-2021, 01:03 PM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Strategy of "Rehabilitation" Unveiled by Cardinal Decourtray
An Analysis by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais [adapted]
In this text on of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais analyzed the Declaration of Cardinal Decourtray, President of the French Bishops' Conference, published in Documentation Catholique, No.1969, Oct. 1988. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais cites from Cardinal Decourtray and follows with his commentary.
The Cardinal's Declaration exposes a strategy by which a traditional priest is to be marginalized and made of no effect in a diocese.
Bishop de Mallerais: In a communique to the priestly council and to the diocesan pastoral council which met in an extraordinary session, the Cardinal Archbishop of Lyon did not hide the fact that the reception of the priests who leave Archbishop Lefebvre will be made with no gift attached; it will be, in fact, their rehabilitation into the Conciliar Church. Let us take up the interesting passage of the Cardinal's document. We emphasize below what should be emphasized:
Declaration of Cardinal Decourtray: Friends, From now on you will know a little better the conditions under which I was brought to welcome Fr._____, lately ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre and put in charge of the St. Pius X priory on the Rue de Marseille, and to entrust him, in urgency and in a provisional way, with the agreement of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, with the Chapel of Notre-Dame-des-Martyrs at the Place Saint-Irene. Obviously it is not a question of a parish but of a shrine open to the faithful who desire to follow the Tridentine Tradition of the Mass (according to the typical edition of the Roman Missal of 1962)....I have given a place of worship for the Tridentine celebration of the Mass.[/quote]
Bishop de Mallerais: Thus no parish apostolate, only the celebration of Mass. One is far from the activity of the priory: catechism classes, youth movements, conferences, etc.
Declaration: ...This priest is therefore right now in order with the Church and has received the necessary jurisdiction for the valid exercise of the ministry of Penance or Reconciliation. The questions relative to the other sacraments, notably to marriage, remain pending. It will be necessary to take one's time. While waiting, Father 'will see with the pastor of Saint-Irene how to respond, in a way that is pastoral and consistent with the present day law of the Church, to certain prompt and exceptional requests.
Bishop de Mallerais: Thus we have dependence with respect to an official parish and its pastor. The only autonomy is to be in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance.
Declaration: For the future, here is the text of the declaration that I will ask from the priests who, having recently manifested more or less explicitly, in word or in act, their approval of the actions and of the remarks of Archbishop Lefebvre, desire to exercise the priestly ministry in the Diocese of Lyon (jurisdiction for Confession and the cura animarum) and to obtain contingently the Indult permitting the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.
Bishop de Mallerais: Thus it is not only the ex-members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X who will be compelled to sign a declaration but all 'suspect' priests, those who would hardly have manifested explicitly, even if only in words, their approval, even though only the utterances of Archbishop Lefebvre. And what is more, it is not certain that these suspect priests will be allowed to celebrate the Mass of all times.
Declaration: The diverse points of this declaration are nearly those of the protocol refused on May 6 by Archbishop Lefebvre.
I promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, successor of the blessed Peter in his primacy, and head of the body of bishops, in accordance with the First Council of the Vatican (Denzinger-Schenmetzer, 3059-3064), and with Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, n22), as well as to the bishop of Lyon, to whom I promise respect and obedience.
Bishop de Mallerais: To the text of the Protocol are thus added new requirements. First of all, obedience to the bishop of the place. Will it therefore be necessary to obey his 'pastoral of the Community,'139 and adopt the catechism, Pierres Vivantes?140
Declaration: I declare that I adhere to the teachings of the magisterium of the Pope and the bishops, in conformity with the doctrine of the First Vatican Council (Denzinger-Schonmetzer, 3065-3074) and of the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, n25).
Bishop de Mallerais: A demand that is new and without limits! This is not to adhere to the magisterium when it is truly a magisterium, that is to say, when it faithfully transmits the revealed deposit; but there is demanded the adherence to the teachings [of the magisterium] of the pope and the bishops of this time: therefore, to ecumenism, to religious liberty, to the rights of man, etc.
Declaration: I pledge myself to have a positive attitude, of studying the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, of the liturgical books, and of the Code of Canon Law promulgated following the Council by the Sovereign Pontiff.
Bishop de Mallerais: It is self-evident that Cardinal Decourtray erased from his text what Cardinal Ratzinger was conceding to Archbishop Lefebvre, namely, the right to consider that 'certain texts' of the Council are 'difficult to reconcile with Tradition.' It is on these texts that Archbishop Lefebvre promised to have a positive attitude of study, etc. Visibly, at Lyon and in the dioceses, no dispute of the conciliar documents will be permitted, not even a question mark. No, one must stick to everything and 'study' everything, as if he were culpably ignorant of these texts, as well as of those of the Mass of Paul VI and of the new Canon Law.
Declaration: I declare that I recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does in communion with the Pope and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions and the translations of the missal and of the rituals, promulgated and approved by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
Bishop de Mallerais: You will notice the two added points that we have emphasized. Non-communion with the Pope does not affect, in any case, the validity of the Mass. On the other hand, the bad translations (such as 'pour la multitude' and, still more serious, the 'for all' of the English and German [and Italian] translation 'betrayals) do indeed affect the validity, or, at the least, place a doubt in their regard. Approved of or not by the present-day Roman bureaus, a translation that changes even only partially the meaning of the sacramental words can render the sacrament invalid. The creativity of the national centers of pastoral liturgical study and the frivolity of the Roman commissions are the cause of numerous erroneous vernacular versions, which are indeed bluntly whimsical ones that can bring about the invalidity of the sacrament. Even in Latin certain new sacramentary texts yield, by their ambiguity, to an interpretation that is Protestant in a sense, and that can exert influence on the celebrant by giving him a counter-intention which invalidates the sacrament.
Declaration: I promise to observe the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II.
Bishop de Mallerais: Here there is no change in the text that Archbishop Lefebvre had judged on May 5 as being at the extreme limit of acceptability, with the restriction placed on No. 3, concerning the 'texts difficult to reconcile with Tradition.' Deprived of this restriction, the declaration demanded by Cardinal Decourtray asks for the acceptance of the entirely questionable passages from the new Canon Law. For example: the 'double subject of the supreme power in the Church'; the reversal of the two ends of marriage (the perfecting of the spouses put before the procreation and education of the children!); the suppression of the promises of the non-Catholic spouse in a mixed marriage, concerning the baptism and the Catholic education of all the children; and finally, intercommunion foreseen in certain cases.
Declaration: Thought must also be given to the pastoral accompaniment of the faithful attached to the Tridentine Mass but faithful to the pope and to the bishops...to receive the confidence of the faithful attached to the liturgy and to the catechesis such as they knew them before the reforms, but also to help them progress in the living communion of the Catholic Church. For this I count very much on the movements of Catholic Action, in the strict or the broad sense.
Bishop de Mallerais: In this excerpt you have the purpose of the intended rehabilitation: '...to help them to progress in the Living Communion of the Catholic Church...' How are we to interpret this except to mean that we must 'get into line,' to be 're-integrated' into the system, to accept the new ideology of the conciliar Church?... 'Let us not set foot in the opposing camp, because we would thus be giving the enemy a proof of our weakness, which the enemy would try to interpret as a sign of weakness and a mark of complicity.' - St. Pius X
Tissier de Mallerais
139. i.e., the Cardinal’s pastoral policy to develop base communities.
140. A heretical French catechism.
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Peter Scott [2003]: The Anti-Cross Council |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-07-2021, 12:30 PM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus - February 2003
The Anti-Cross Council
by Rev. Fr. Peter Scott
On the patronal feast of Holy Cross Seminary of the Society of Saint Pius X (Sept. 14) in Goulburn, Australia, its new Rector, Fr. Peter Scott, delivered this sermon on the spirituality of the Cross and the anti-Cross changes introduced into the Catholic Church subsequent to Vatican Council II.
In Roman antiquity, crucifixion was the most cruel, most severe, most terrible, most shameful of all punishments, a torment reserved for slaves and non-Roman citizens who had committed offenses against the public order. In order to add to the disgust with which it was regarded, it was prescribed that the bodies not be removed from the cross, but that they be allowed to be ripped apart by vultures and other birds of prey.
How could such a horrifying and disreputable symbol become the glorious sign of our Faith, our only Hope, and the banner of our King, as we proclaim it in the Vexilla Regis? By what strange kind of paradox could this sign of a curse have been erected into the glorious throne upon which the King of Heaven Himself desired to enter into His Kingdom? What is the sublime novelty that enabled the mystery of the Cross to bring about the transformation of the world?
The Mysterious Power of the Cross
Our Lord certainly spoke very explicitly about the Cross. However, it is hardly to be supposed that the Apostles, vying for the highest position as they did, unable to stand faithful at the foot of the Cross during the crucifixion, truly understood the full import of such expressions as: "He who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me" (Mt. 10: 38) or Our Lord's assurance that without taking up our Cross we cannot follow him: "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." However, as St. Luke adds, he who does not do so "cannot be my disciple" (Lk. 14:27). St. Matthew expresses the same astounding reality in slightly different words: "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake, will find it" (Mt. 10:39).
In fact, it was only the Holy Ghost who could enlighten the Apostles as to the power that the Cross had acquired on Good Friday, when God the Son deigned to shed His divine blood upon the Cross for the Redemption of mankind. It is from the moment of the Passion that this mystery shines forth (fulget Crucis Mysterium), as we sing on Good Friday: "Behold the wood of the Cross, upon which the Savior of the world hung."
St. Paul's extraordinary understanding of this mystery is repeatedly the focus of his Epistles. He explains how the humiliation of the Cross was the necessary means chosen by God to overcome the opposition of the sinners that we are and bring us back to Himself, reconciling "both in one body to God by the Cross, having slain the enmity in himself" (Eph. 2:16), "author and finisher of Faith, Jesus, who for the joy set before Him, endured a Cross, despising shame and sits at the right hand of the throne of God." It was only by emptying and humbling Himself that he would be exalted and win the victory that was His: He "emptied Himself, taking the nature of a slave...He humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even to the death on a Cross" (Phil. 2:7,8). It is for this reason that he teaches that it is only through the imitation of the lowliness of Our Savior's humiliated state, i.e., through the mystery of the Cross, that eternal salvation and the gates of heaven will be opened wide to us, for thus He will "refashion the body of our lowliness, conforming it to the body of His glory" (Phil. 3:21). Thus he has no hesitation whatsoever at condemning those who refuse this mystery, who "are enemies of the Cross of Christ" and proclaiming their eternal damnation: "Their end is ruin, their god is the belly, their glory is in their shame, they mind the things of earth" (Phil. 3:18, 19).
Hence the universality and obligatory nature of devotion to the Holy Cross among Catholics, truly the sign of the Son of man by the love of which the elect will be recognized on the last day. The vision of Constantine the Great, "In hoc signo vinces–In this sign you will vanquish," his subsequent victory over Maxentius, the first display of the sign of the Cross on his labarum, and the subsequent discovery of the true Cross by his mother, St. Helen in 326, simply furthered the recognition of this most profound and simple truth of our Catholic Faith. This appreciation of the Cross as inseparable from the living of our Faith is magnificently expressed by Pope Pius XI in his letter to the German hierarchy condemning the evils of National Socialism Mit Brennender Sorge of 1933:
Quote:The Cross of Christ...is still for the Christian the hallowed sign of Redemption, the standard of moral greatness and strength. In its shadow we live. In its kiss we die. On our graves it shall stand to proclaim our Faith, to witness our hope turned towards the eternal light (§31).
Mortification: The Mystery of the Cross
What precisely is meant by "the doctrine of the Cross," that it might become "foolishness to those who perish," but "the power of God" "to those who are saved" (I Cor. 1:18), so much that St. Paul "determined not to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (I Cor. 2:2)? What is it about the Cross that is so specifically Catholic that without it is impossible to accomplish God's will?
If the Cross is the instrument of Christ's death, it must necessarily mean for us the dying to ourselves, to our pride, self-love and passions that we call mortification. It must mean the generous and positive will to suffer for the love of Christ, according to the example of St. Paul: "I rejoice now in the sufferings I bear for your sake; and what is lacking of the sufferings of Christ I fill up in my flesh for his body, which is the Church" (Col. 1:24). The Cross consequently symbolizes the willing and joyful death to ourselves: "They who belong to Christ have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal. 5:24).
However, a more precise view of this mystery reveals that the embracing of the Cross involves a multitude of different elements or spiritual convictions, all inspired by divine grace and impossible without it:
1) Profound contrition for sin, for if the Cross is a reparation for the punishment due to our own sins, then it is manifestly obvious that the very first element in understanding its mystery is the consciousness of and sorrow for our sins.
2) Expiation or some kind of suffering to unite with Christ's suffering to pay the temporal punishment due to sin is a necessary consequence.
Such meritorious and temporary suffering takes the place of the eternal and fruitless penalty that we ought to have received for our sins. Thus applies to us what St. Luke says of Our Lord: "It was necessary for him to suffer, and so to enter into His glory" (Lk. 24:46).
3) Sacrifice of our self-will is also necessary, according to Our Lord's command before following Him: "let him deny himself."
4) Poverty of spirit or detachment from the things of this world is also necessary for the imitation of Christ, who had nowhere to lay his head, according to the words of St. John: "Do not love the world or the things that are in the world...the world with its lust is passing away, but he who does the will of God abides forever" (I Jn. 2:14-17).
5) Chastity according to one's state in life, "because all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh..." (I Jn. 2:16).
6) Obedience and humility, without which there is no imitation of Christ and no overcoming of the pride of life (Cf. Phil. 2:6-8).
7) Abandonment to Divine Providence, as a manifestation of the sacrifice of our self-will, following the example of Our Lord's sixth word on the Cross: "Into Thy hands I commend My spirit" (Lk. 23:46). It is from such abandonment that comes the generous acceptation of trials and tribulation, and the desire to bear them after Our Lord, unlike Simon of Cyrene. This is also what enables us to see scourges as a sign of God's blessing, mercy and love: "Those whom I love, I rebuke and chastise; be earnest therefore and repent" (Apoc. 3:19).
8) Fortitude, patience in bearing evils, and magnanimity, the great desire to practice virtue for the love of Christ, are the consequence of such abandonment.
9) Hope, finally, is also inseparable from the mystery of the Cross, for it is the assurance that God's mercy and compassion are applied to our souls through the Cross that alone enables us to embrace it, as the Apostle says: "For our present light affliction, which is for the moment, prepares for us an eternal weight of glory that is beyond all measure" (II Cor. 4: 17).
Such is precisely the mystery of the Cross, that is central to the very life of divine grace in our souls. The question remains to consider whether or not this mystery is present in the theology of the post-conciliar reform.
The Precursors
It is interesting for us to consider two errors that prepared the way for Vatican II, and which were each in their turn condemned for the absence of the mystery of the Cross. The first is the heresy of Americanism, condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1899 in his encyclical letter to Cardinal Gibbons entitled Testem Benevolentiae. In it, he explains that the essence of Americanism, and the foundation of the new ideas that it represents, is that the Church must adapt to the humanism of the present "adult" times, abandoning its former severity both in doctrine and in the discipline of daily life. It does this by giving precedence to natural abilities, such as the ability to get things done, and to natural virtues, such as efficiency and productivity, demeaning the so-called passive virtues, such as patience, humility and mortification. It is obvious from the preceding considerations that this is effective by a denial of the Cross, and that it means a contempt of the evangelical virtues of poverty, chastity and obedience, of which Christ is the perfect model. The consequence of this is the contempt of the religious life and the undermining of a truly supernatural life of grace, built necessarily upon the mystery of the Cross, i.e., mortification. This cult of action, success and progress, as the Pope mentioned, became a kind of dogma, effectively relegating the Cross to the background.
In 1907, St. Pius X was even more clear in his condemnation of Modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, clarifying from the very beginning that the ultimate root of this heresy, the sewer of all heresies, was the rebellion against the mystery of the Cross:
Quote:It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who by arts entirely new and full of deceit are striving...as far as in them lies, to utterly subvert the very kingdom of Christ (§1).
The Spirit of Vatican II
It is not without interest for us to examine the various aspects of the post-conciliar reform, and to consider the relationship that each of them has with the spirituality of the Cross. Most obvious is the very spirit of Vatican II, clearly manifested in Gaudium et Spes, the document on the adaptation of the Church to the modern world. Pope Paul VI described it as a "new humanism" in his discourse at the public session for the formal closing of Vatican II, on December 7, 1965, in which he summed up the whole purpose of the Council. It was, he explained to be a response to the secularism of modern man and to his spirit of independence (which, by the way, St. Pius X, in his first encyclical E Supremi Apostolatus, called apostasy from God):
Quote:"The religion of God who made himself man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God"
and he goes on to explain that what happened was neither a clash nor a struggle:
Quote:"What happened? A shock, a battle, an anathema? This could have happened, but it did not....An immense sympathy for men completely overwhelmed it. The discovery and study of human needs...has absorbed the attention of our synod."
He followed with the following profession of faith in humanism that is the key to understanding the spirit of Vatican II:
Quote:"You, modern humanists, who renounce the transcendence of divine things, at least acknowledge this merit and recognize our new humanism, for we more than anyone practice the worship of man."
Here lies the fundamental motive for the aggiornamento, the continual, ongoing and substantial changes in the teachings and life of the Church: the divinization of man. Placing man first, a new relationship of friendship and not of opposition has been created with the world. However, such is not the Catholic perspective, according to which the love or hatred of the Cross divides mankind into two opposing groups: those who are of the world and those who are not. Cf. Jn. 17:14: "The world has hated them because they are not of the world, as I am not"; and I Jn. 2:15-17: "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him...." Necessarily small is the number of those who are true followers of Our Lord in poverty, suffering and humiliation, for the Cross is the narrow gate that few find: Mt. 7:14: "How narrow the gate and close the way that leads to life! And few there are who find it." It is consequently manifestly obvious that the one reality that has been evacuated from Christianity by the post-conciliar Church, and that has made possible the new humanistic adaptation to the world is the mystery of the Cross. Moreover, the more one examines the different aspects of the post-conciliar theology, the more one realizes that they are all characterized by the absence of the Cross.
The Liturgy
It is in the Church's public prayer that the post-conciliar spirit is most obvious to the faithful. The list of doctrinal realities that have either been entirely obliterated from the prayers of the liturgy, or at least deliberately pushed into the background, is impressive indeed: hell, judgment, the wrath of God, the wickedness of sin, the greatest evil, the temporal and eternal punishment owed for sins, detachment from this world, purgatory, prayer for the poor souls, the Church militant, Christ's Kingship on earth, the triumph of the Catholic Faith, the merits of the saints, the conversion of non-Catholics. Note that these are the very same truths that are deliberately omitted from sermons, and that they are the dogmas that relate most closely to the mystery of the Cross.
For, firstly, the apparently "negative" dogmas, such as hell, judgment, the wrath of God, the wickedness of sin, detachment from this world would be incomprehensibly harsh without the mystery of the Cross, in which God's mercy is allied to His justice, His patience is associated with His holiness, His love united to His majesty, and His kindness inseparable from His greatness.
Secondly, the teachings that express the necessity of reparation for sin, including purgatory, penance, sacrifice, would fill us with dread and despair if it were not for the Cross and its continuation in the holy sacrifice of the Mass.
Thirdly, the dogmas that express the Communion of the Saints necessarily take their root in the merits of the Cross, upon which all human merit, effort and good works are entirely founded. These dogmas include the invocation of the merits of the saints, praying for the poor souls, the combat of the Church militant herself, fighting for the (Social) Kingship of Christ on this earth and for the conversion of non-Catholics.
Also crucial for an understanding of the new liturgy is the whole question of the new theology of the Paschal Mystery that is at the basis of the reforms of the New Mass (Cf. The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, published by the Society of Saint Pius X). This Paschal mystery theory is that of a redemption without the cross and without reparation for sin. For sin does not, according to this theory, incur a debt owed to divine justice, and nothing needs to be done to repay the outrage to the divine Majesty that sin brought about. Consequently, it considers that Christ's vicarious satisfaction, that is, His paying for our sins and on our behalf, was not essential to the Redemption. The Redemption is really just the ultimate manifestation of the eternal love of the Father. It is for this reason that every reference to propitiation, that is, to the satisfaction owed to God to repay the punishments due for our sins, has been removed from the new reformed rite of Mass. The exclusive reference to the Risen Christ, as symbolized by crosses that no longer have a corpus, is ultimately an indirect negation of the mystery of the Cross. The Vatican II beliefs that believers of all religions can be saved, since Christ enters into union with every man in virtue of the Incarnation, are the corollary.
The Priesthood
The post-conciliar Church's manifest difficulties with celibacy, particularly manifested by the unhindered infiltration of homosexuals and pedophiles, is but the consequence of a new concept of the priesthood, in which the priest is reduced to the level of a presider or president, as indicated in the definition contained in Art. 7 of the instruction that introduced the new Missal of Paul VI (Instructio Generalis), especially in its original text. This new concept, however, goes even further than this. At its root it is a deliberate confusion between the spiritual priesthood shared by all the faithful and the sacramental priesthood that the priest alone has and that enables him to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This confusion is deliberate because it has as its purpose to introduce into the minds of priests and laity alike the idea that the priest is just a man like other men, that he is not to be regarded any differently from them, and certainly not as another Christ, personally standing in the place of God made man and representing Him on this earth. He has the same needs and rights as any other man, for example with respect to recreation, and, for those who are logical with themselves, ultimately with respect to marriage also.
One wonders what could be the motive of such deliberate confusion, so alien to the Faith and to the Catholic way of thinking. In fact, there is only one explanation. It is the deliberate elimination of the mystery of the Cross. The new Mass is no longer essentially regarded as an unbloody renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary. Being a meal of men, it needs a president to preside, just like the traditional Mass, being the sacrifice of God, needs a priest to offer it. The priest of the New Mass consequently no longer needs to live a life of ascetical mortification, sacrifice and obedience, nor to follow the example of Our Lord, who "was heard because of his reverent submission. And he, Son though he was, learned obedience from the things that he suffered" (Heb. 5: 7,8).
The Religious Life
The defections from the religious life are legion, as every Catholic knows. It is no accident that many of these took place in the fifteen years that followed the close of Vatican II. This was not just because the doors were opened to change, and the religious no longer felt bound by a ball and chain. The reason was the lack of a special goal for religious. The service of God became equated with the service of man, which then became the new end of the religious life, rather than striving for perfection through self-denial in order to assure one's own eternal salvation. This anthropocentric revolution in the minds of those in religious life removed the special ideal from their lives. Why make the efforts any more? A person can serve man and be kind to man in the world just as easily as in the convent, without the restrictions and hindrances of the religious life.
Humanism replaced the Cross, through which alone we have at the same time the love of our own soul, and the true, supernatural love of our neighbor. It was an immediate consequence that religious obedience, or entire submission simply out of the love of God, disappeared to be replaced by utilitarianism, or what is useful to one's neighbor in the purely temporal order. The destruction of the community life followed in turn, replaced by individualism or self-government at all costs, applying to religious the liberal principles of independence and egalitarian emancipation.
Education
A marked characteristic of the post-conciliar Church has been the idealization of youth, that has been called "Juvenilism" (cf. Iota Unum, p. 196.). According to this way of thinking youth is to be particularly honored for its continual seeking, its uncontrolled spontaneity, and for its liberation from formal ties and rules.
This, however, is the destruction of education, for it neglects the fact that youth is a time of potency, that is, of incompleteness, of imperfection, of frequent and ready change, and of lack of conviction. It is far less perfect, since it is far removed from the immutability of God. It consequently needs a firm master to draw it towards true convictions and to protect it from fallen human nature's rebellion and propensity to sin. So readily even the idealistic youth will be entirely subverted by his passions, by his self-centered feeling of infallibility, that he will convince himself in apparent "good faith" of error, all due to a lack of willingness to receive the wisdom handed down by the experience and knowledge of older persons. Education ought consequently to be the drawing out of a person's potential by forming true convictions by dependence upon a wise instructor. It is the exact contrary of spontaneous self-seeking.
Where does this replacement of spontaneity for education by handing down, that is by tradition, come from? Surely from the absence of the Cross. Does it not take a great mortification of the intellect as well as of the will to receive from another? Is it not the Cross which alone will ensure that we seek dependence upon others rather than independence by ourselves, by which we know and recognize our personal inadequacy and insufficiency (Jn. 15:5: "Without me you can do nothing"), by which we overcome our selfish self-sufficiency and learn to depend upon the wisdom of the ancients. It is this mortification of the spirit, essential consequence of living the mystery of the Cross, that the idealization of youth entirely rejects.
The modern pedagogy is based upon the philosophy that truth transcends both student and teacher, that is, that it is essentially subjective. Education is consequently nothing more than the transmission of an experience of learning. It is ultimately but self-education, the very notion of authority and submission of one's intellect to it being removed. A teacher is a helper and a friend, but not a master who directs. Just as Protestantism substituted private judgment for dogmatic authority, so does the modernist educator substitute subjective examination or personal choice for objective truth. But just as the ultimate self-teaching and self-government was the sin of our first parents, in which we participate through our own sins, so likewise can there be no substitute for the Cross in the re-establishing of order, in the denying personal autonomy, in submitting ourselves to the objective truth of our sinfulness, showing us our wound of ignorance, our need for the Redemption, for grace, and for guidance. There can be no substitute for the Cross in a Catholic philosophy of education.
Feminism
The post-Vatican II woman is proud of her emancipation. She is now on an equal level with man, and she can do everything he can, including read in church, speak publicly or even preach in church, distribute Holy Communion, make sick calls, and even to be appointed "pastor." She considers that she can be just as much a leader as man can be. The principle of such unnatural egalitarianism, woman's rejection of her traditional functions and duties is not really feminism at all, but masculinism, making women as much like men as possible. This is nothing less than the application of the principle of independence to the social role of women, unshackling things that are dependent by nature and confined to specific roles of support, as if there were something inferior or pejorative about a role of dependence and support. It is also a refusal of the so-called "passive" virtues so well demonstrated by Our Lord on the Cross, notably patience, meekness, gentleness, humility.
Can there be any doubt that the obliteration of the feminine and supportive role of women is a denial of the Cross, its humble self-abnegation, its lesson of denying our self will to help another and to do God's will? Many consequences follow. Mary's so magnificently feminine role of dependent cooperation in the mystery of our Redemption, the mystery of her Co-redemption at the foot of the Cross, by which she became Mediatrix of all graces, is thereby evacuated of all meaning. For the modernists she is just there to watch, or as John Paul II puts it several times in Rosarium Virginis Mariae, to contemplate the face of Christ. If the Woman who brought God into this world and who crushed the serpent's head is not necessary, then the same must be said of any other woman.
Another consequence is rampant vanity, the abandonment of the sense of modesty (i.e., of the sense of shame of one who is aware of the disorder of fallen human nature), and the denial of the Church's teaching on the necessity of avoiding proximate occasions of sin, under the excuse that the forming of relationships is a necessary step in growth in maturity and in the capacity to love. If woman has, by losing her femininity, cheapened herself, it is because she practically denies the necessity of mortifying fallen human nature, that is, of the Cross once more.
Penance
The modern abandonment of works of penance on the grounds that sorrow for sin should be interior is ultimately a denial of the unity of body and soul. In fact it is just as necessary for the human sinner to express his compunction by physical acts of penance as it was for Our Lord to redeem us by his physical death on the Cross. It is not hard to see that this exclusive emphasis on the interior is but an excuse to eliminate all true sorrow and expiation for sin, and to deny the reality of the debt of the temporal punishment for sin, which no longer has to be paid, according to the new theology. The minimization of purgatory and indulgences goes hand in hand with the elimination of outward words of penance. Of course, according to such a perspective the sufferings of the Cross have no purpose either.
Ethics
Situation ethics is the name that Pope Pius XII gave to the transference of the judgment of right and wrong, and of good and evil from the objective to the subjective domain. All morality depends upon the situation in which a person finds himself. There is no outside rule. It eliminates the natural law, making all morality depend upon the eye of the beholder. Personal conscience becomes a rule unto itself, in direct contradiction with the very notion of law, according to which an individual, contingent being conforms itself to an absolute by the ordering of reason, that derives from the eternal law, the mind of God Himself.
This independence of the conscience and its refusal of submission to any external standard is based upon the theory of man's autonomy, which is called anthropocentrism. This theory was clearly taught by the Vatican II document on the Church in the modern world, Gaudium et Spes. It is there stated that it is to man that
Quote:"all things must be ordered, as to the center and culmination" of all creation (GS §14), and that man is willed "for himself" (GS §24)
... and that consequently he is no longer willed for the greater glory of God. It is a practical denial that God is the center of all things, which He made for Himself (Prov. 16:4), and that if God was made Incarnate on this earth for us and for our salvation, it was not that we are the end of the creation and the Redemption. To the contrary, it was to make satisfaction to divine justice for our offenses, and to restore to God the due honor that He is owed by His creatures, and which can only be given by our salvation. Consequently, there is only one answer to anthropocentrism, and it is the very same mystery that anthropocentrism denies-the mystery of the Cross. Just as the Cross demonstrates how hopelessly inadequate we are by ourselves, so also is it that Our Lord died on the Cross because He loved us and because it was His Father's will that by such satisfaction He would redirect sinful human nature back to God, its only final end. It is this direction of everything in him to Almighty God, effectively denied by the new theology, that can alone be the basis of true objective morality.
The Death Penalty
The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, while admitting the possibility of the legitimate use of the death penalty in the Church's traditional teaching, strictly limits it to its deterrent and remedial benefits for society (§2266), thereby "rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm." However, it entirely overlooks the principal reason in the Church's traditional teaching, which is that of restitution of the public order of justice, so disturbed by the crime. If it does admit that punishment can have an expiatory value, it is only "when his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender" (ibid.), thereby making it a purely subjective and personal expiation, rather than the public, social restitution demanded by justice. Furthermore, there are in the same catechism such strong statements against capital punishment in virtue of the dignity of the human person (ibid. §2267) and the demands of evangelical charity (ibid. §2306), that even the above-mentioned possibility is practically denied, as can be seen by the universal opposition to the death penalty by the Pope and the modernist bishops. This denial of the objective requirements of justice is inseparable from the denial of the mystery of the Cross, which is that of Christ's vicarious satisfaction for the punishment due for our sins. Consequently, it is ultimately the refusal of the Cross which is at the root of the refusal of the demands of justice present even in the natural law.
Dialogue
Both the word and the reality of dialogue are an entire post-conciliar novelty in the Catholic Church. It is based not only on the false principle of freedom of expression, but also on the idea that all truth is problematic and open to discussion. Furthermore, it is understood that Catholics have something to learn from non-Catholics in spiritual things, for they must speak with them as if they did not possess the truth. After a while, the whole question of who possesses the truth becomes considered as irrelevant. For it necessarily maintains that nobody has to sacrifice his opinion in the mutual exchanges that take place, that is, that there are no fundamental points of contradiction between opposing religious viewpoints. It is consequently in its very nature a denial of Christ's superior authority, and of His use of that authority in instituting the Church. It is the Cross that teaches the mortification of the intellect, by which it will only discuss on the level of objective truth, which makes all dialogue impossible. Cf. Gal. 2:20: "The life that I now live in the flesh, I live in the Faith of the Son of God who loved me and delivered himself up for me."
Ecumenism
The fundamental basis of Ecumenism, the sharing of prayers and religious experience with non-Catholics, is the principle of non-proselytism, namely of the abandonment of all effort to make converts. This renunciation of all proselytism was explicitly acknowledged with respect to the Orthodox in the 1993 Balamand Agreement, and with respect to the Jews in the August 12, 2002 statement of the US bishops. It has likewise been the necessary understanding for all inter-religious meetings, in particular those sponsored by Pope John Paul II in Assisi in 1986 and again in January 2002. This clearly means indifferentism with respect to the universality and expansion of the Catholic Faith and of supernatural truth throughout the world, and consequently indifference to the mystery of the Cross, the objective cause of our Redemption.
The harmony of Catholics with non-Catholic and even non-Christian religions that is sought for by such meetings is not unity and is consequently not the fruit of the Cross, only capable of creating unity amongst those who are at odds, as St. Paul states: "For he himself is our peace, he it is who has made both one" (Eph. 2:14). Clearly this is not possible with non-Christians, who do not believe in the divinity of Christ, or with non-Catholics who, although they may believe in Christ, do not venerate the passion or understand the power of the mystery of the Cross. In its place ecumenism establishes an egalitarian humanism, according to which false religions must be recognized as valuable means of salvation, for as Vatican II says, they have
Quote:"many elements of sanctification and of truth" (Lumen Gentium, §7), for they "have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation" (Unitatis Redintegratio, §3).
They are consequently all valid, changeable, historical expressions of a single world-wide religion of immanence, which means that God is to be found in every man, regardless of his character, of his virtue or of his life, and regardless of his acceptation of supernatural truth. This is, in fact, exactly what Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II document, "On the Church and the Modern World") means when it states that "Christ is in a certain way united to every man" (§22). In this way the Cross is entirely evacuated of meaning, and if all men are united to Christ, it is whether they know it or not, and whether they love the Cross or not. Consequently the Christ that they are united to is a disincarnate, cosmic Christ, one in whom the real human nature, and the superabundant sufferings of the Passion have somehow become superfluous.
Collegiality, Religious Liberty, and Liberation Theology
You might wonder what these three novelties have in common. Collegiality is the denial of personal authority in the government of the Church, reducing it to a democratic process, and making all the world's bishops (together with the Pope) a second supreme authority in the Church, equal with the Pope himself. Religious Liberty is the new idea that all the false religions have equal rights to practice their false worship as the Catholic Church has, and that they cannot be prevented from doing so, provided that they do not harm the public order. Liberation Theology is the substitution of earthly justice and peace as the Church's goal, instead of a heavenly kingdom.
They do indeed all have a common denominator. All three groups of ideas have as their goal earthly happiness. They aim at some human harmony to be found on this earth, either
- amongst Catholics by the democratic process in the Church allowing the expression of all ideas (=collegiality),
- or with non-Catholics by allowing to all religions freedom of expression (=religious liberty),
- or with non-religious people by demonstrating that Catholics can be just as zealous for earthly well-being as they are (=liberation theology).
In all cases, it is an attempt to "rescue" the Church, considered unpopular, by making it appealing to the world, and by making it embrace the false principles of the French revolution, which are anti-Catholic because they limit human life to the dimensions of this earthly existence: namely Liberty (=Religious Liberty), Equality (=Collegiality) and Fraternity (=Liberation Theology). By promoting such ideas the Church becomes a modern democracy with a religious veneer, namely the vehicle for a man-centered, immanentist religious feeling to promote earthly well-being.
All three of these false philosophies–for they are philosophy and not religion at all–are a manifest rebellion against the authority of God, to whom all of mankind must be subject, which is only possible through the power of the Cross, "exerting the power by which he is able also to subject all things to himself" (Phil. 3:21). There is no other source of divine order, no other means to give true, supernatural freedom, dignity and harmony to mankind, as St. Paul says: "For it has pleased God the Father that in him all his fullness should dwell, and that through him he should reconcile to himself all things, whether on the earth or in the heavens, making peace through the blood of his cross" (Col. 1:20). All three of these philosophies have become autonomous, self-sufficient good, independent of and devoid of all reference to God, by their absence of any connection with the mystery of the Cross.
The Sacraments
The new post-conciliar theology constantly emphasizes the aspect of the sacrament that they are a sign, overlooking that they are efficacious signs, producing the grace that they symbolize. The downgrading of the ex opere operate effect of the sacraments reduces them to becoming symbols of subjective events, and thus a "sacrament" comes to include everything that symbolizes the sacred, and no longer the seven sacraments that "contain and effectuate" (Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 139) the grace that they symbolize. It is in this sense that the Church itself is defined as a sacrament (Lumen Gentium, §1). However, to redefine the sacraments in such a way is to confuse the true sacraments with any other symbolic mystery and to undermine not only Catholic doctrine, but also the basis of the Catholic life in the administration of the sacraments.
The seven sacraments are profoundly different from all the other signs or mysteries that can be spoken of. The seven sacraments not only symbolize something present, as every sign does, but also symbolize a past real event and a future grace to be obtained. The past reality is the cause through which all seven sacraments bring about our sanctification, namely the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The future reality is the final end for which the sacraments exist, namely everlasting life, to which the sacraments give a right. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this very simply:
Quote: "Consequently a sacrament is a sign that is both a reminder of the past, i.e., the passion of Christ; and an indication of that which is effected in us by Christ's passion, i.e., grace; and a prognostic, that is, a foretelling of future glory" (Summa Theologica, IIIa, Q. 60, Art. 3).
All the sacraments have their effect of producing everlasting life through the Passion of Christ.
However, according to the new concept of sacrament, enlarged to include any sacred, symbolic mystery, a sacrament is no longer a sign of the past reality, namely the Passion, nor of our future hope, everlasting life. It is simply a sign of something present, without relation to either of these. A sacrament is a mystery that relates to our consciousness here and now, that is to our gift of faith. It has consequently become a purely subjective symbol, limited to the present, or to the "today" of our experience, separated from the Passion and from eternal life. The new theology of the sacraments, with its whole new emphasis on community experience, is consequently an evacuation of the Cross.
Hence baptism is no longer primarily to remove Original Sin, but to introduce into membership in a community. Penance is for reconciliation, and no longer for the forgiveness of the guilt of actual sin and for the remission of the punishment that is due to it, possible only through the mystery of the Cross. The beautiful prayer that the priest recites after each Confession in the traditional rite is an illustration of this traditional understanding of the sacrament of Penance:
Quote:Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, merita Beatae Mariae Virginis et omnium sanctorum, quidquid boni feceris vel mali sustinueris sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum, augmentum gratiae et praemium vitae aeternae.
May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the saints obtain for you that whatever good you do or whatever evil you bear might merit for you the remission of your sins, the increase of grace and the reward of everlasting life.
Likewise, Extreme Unction is no longer considered as a purification and immediate preparation for death, nor Confirmation the source of fortitude that will enable us to die for the Faith as Christ did on the Cross, nor is Matrimony considered as the source of the spirit of self-sacrifice that makes parents place children first. Matrimony is now considered primarily as a "communion of life and love" (Gaudium et Spes, §48). In each case the Cross is evacuated as the source of the holiness that the sacraments give.
The same applies even more for the Blessed Eucharist, in which the concept of a meal has totally taken over and eliminated the Blessed Sacrament as a remedy for our failures, venial sins and weaknesses, and as the gage of everlasting life, for it has eliminated the mystery of the Cross. Hence the love that it inspires is not a love of reparation for the ingratitude of men, starting with ourselves, which is so much a part of our daily visits of adoration to the Blessed Sacrament. Entirely different is the traditional devotion to the Blessed Eucharist, not just as to a meal, but as to the sacred banquet that opens up to our souls to everlasting life by applying the grace of the Passion in the most sublime and perfect way. This is described beautifully in the antiphon written by St. Thomas Aquinas for the feast of Corpus Christi, that the priest recites in the traditional rite when he administers Holy Communion outside Mass:
Quote:O sacrum convivium in quo Christus sumitur, recolitur memoria passionis eius, mens impletur gratia et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur.
O holy banquet, in which Christ is received, the memory of His passion is renewed, the soul is filled with grace, and there is given to us a pledge of future glory.
Conclusion
The Cross is not simply omitted from the spirit of Vatican II and its reforms. It is not just a disjunction or separation. There is a profound, consistent, fundamental and across the board opposition to the Cross. Whatever aspect of life is examined under the optic of Vatican II, we find every time a deliberate and universal rejection of the mystery of the Cross. It is for this reason that Vatican II can legitimately be called the Anti-Cross Council.
As Romano Amerio points out in Iota Unum (p. 754), whenever there is crisis or confusion, the cause must be sought for in the absence of a principle of unity coordinating the multiplicity of different goods and activities into one. However, the Church's principle of unity is precisely the mystery of the Cross, for this was His hour, for which He came into the world: "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again" (Jn. 10:17). It is the elimination of this principle of unity that is responsible for the crisis of the post-conciliar Church, that, in 1972, Pope Paul VI rightly called "auto-destruction."
Every attempt to find another principle of unity has failed; e.g., the dignity of man, human consciousness, liberty, equality, and human brotherhood. The reason for this is that it takes an external and transcendent principle to unite a society, group or organization. It cannot attain to unity by something within itself, that is immanent to itself, but only by some superior principle over, beyond and superior to that which is to be united. Falling back upon some interior element such as personal conscience or freedom can only ultimately cause further division, as every member goes his own way.
It is the grace of the Passion and the power of the Cross that unites the members of the Church, the mystical body of Christ, to their head, and to one another. It is the only source of justice, restoring the order destroyed by sin, and the only hope for us to practice the charity so necessary to the restoration of divine order. Hence it is ultimately the deliberate exclusion of the Passion and Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ that is the cause of the present crisis in the Church, nor can there be any other response than the total reinsertion of the Cross into theology, spirituality and Catholic life.
|
|
|
|
| Before the Fall of Campos: Their 1982 Profession of Faith in the Face of Errors |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-07-2021, 12:15 PM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus - November 1982
Campos Speaks to the Church
[Before their Fall in 2001...]
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsgetdotinfo.files.wordp...%3D379&f=1]](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsgetdotinfo.files.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F10%2Fbishop-de-castro-mayer-and-campos-priests.jpg%3Fw%3D529%26h%3D379&f=1)
Until the end of 1981 the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, was unique within the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Its bishop, Msgr. Antonio de Castro Mayer, had refused to adopt the new rite of Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969. He insisted upon retaining the Tridentine Mass as the official liturgy of his diocese. The Bishop made this decision for two reasons: firstly, he claimed that the New Mass was not mandatory; secondly, he claimed that the New Mass presented a danger to the faith of his people. The Bishop sent a detailed justification of his position to the Vatican in 1980; it was printed in full in the Angelus Press pamphlet, The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass. We urge our readers to possess several copies of this pamphlet to give to anyone who tells them that celebrating or assisting at the Tridentine Mass is "disobedient."
Bishop de Castro Mayer retired at the end of 1981. He was replaced by a liberal who is attempting to impose the New Mass upon the faithful of the diocese but is meeting with considerable resistance. The reason for this resistance was made clear at Easter, 1982, when five Monsignori and twenty other priests of the diocese signed a "Profession of the Catholic Faith in the Face of Present Errors." Their Profession is herewith printed in full. Grateful acknowledgments to Approaches for use of this translation.
We believe firmly in all that our Holy Mother, the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, believes and teaches, and in this Faith we wish to live and die, since only in the Church is God honored and salvation found.
We believe that Jesus Christ has founded only one Church, the Catholic hierarchical Church, whose chief pastors are the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope, and whose aim is to ensure that the men of all ages reach the salvation obtained for us by Our Lord Jesus Christ, together with all the benefits that radiate from it, and to promote on earth the Reign of Our Lord (Mt. 28, 19-20). To do this, the Church does not preach a "new doctrine" but, with the aid of the divine Holy Spirit, faithfully explains the Deposit of Faith received from the Apostles and religiously preserved by her (Vatican Council I).
We profess communion with the See of Peter, in the legitimate successor to which we recognize the primacy and government over the Universal Church, pastors and faithful, and nothing in this world would separate us from the Rock on which Jesus Christ has founded His Church. We believe firmly in papal infallibility as Vatican Council I has defined it. We respect the power of the Holy Father, which is supreme even if not absolute or without limits. It is subordinate to and cannot contradict Sacred Scripture, Traditions and the definitions already proclaimed by the Church in her constant Magisterium. Moreover this power cannot be arbitrary or despotic, such as to impose unconditional obedience or absolve subjects from personal responsibility. We owe unconditional and unlimited obedience only to God.
We are Catholic, Apostolic, Roman and shall be so till death, with the grace of God, and no power or authority will drive us from Holy Church.
We profess the Catholic Faith in an integral and total manner, as it was always professed and transmitted by the Church, by the Sovereign Pontiff, by Councils, and therefore in loyal and perfect continuity and consistency, without excluding a single article of faith.
We reject and anathematize, with the same firmness, all that has been refuted and condemned by Holy Church.
Together with all the Popes, we condemn heresy and all that can favor it: we particularly condemn Protestantism, liberalism, spiritism, naturalism, rationalism, and modernism, in all forms and variants whatever, just as the Popes have done.
We reject equally, together with the Popes and in the same way they have done, all the consequences of these errors.
For these reasons we condemn the present heresy that takes the name of "Progressivism," an improper name besides, since it is nothing but the repetition of errors long ago condemned by Holy Church.
We accept therefore the entire applicability of the words of St. Paul: "Even if we ourselves or an angel from heaven preach to you a gospel different from that which we have preached, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8).
Thus, the tendencies of whatever sort emanating even from persons in authority, whenever they be contrary to traditional Catholic doctrine as it has always been taught, giving free rein to the errors already condemned by the Popes and by the Councils, demand from our conscience a formal rejection.
We affirm in consequence that, whatever contradiction becomes manifest between what is taught today and what Tradition teaches, there is a duty to follow what was always taught by all and in every part of the Church, because only this is truly and properly Catholic.
FOR ALL THESE REASONS, and to be consistent with what the Church our Mother has always taught us in her constant Magisterium, with the Faith of our baptism, of our confirmation, of our first Communion and of our priesthood, in order not to be perjurers and contradict what we have always believed—for all these reasons WE REJECT:
THE NEW MASS, whether in Latin or in the vernacular, since "it represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent" (Letter of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to Paul VI, 5/10/69). In fact the new Order of Mass obscures the expressions intended to underline the Eucharistic dogmas, bringing the Mass close to the Protestant supper and not accentuating the clear profession of the Catholic Faith.
THE NEW MORAL THEOLOGY—subjective, opportunist, contaminated by permissive liberalism, in which little or nothing any longer constitutes a sin.
THE PROFANATION OF THE CHURCH by dress always considered immodest, just as by certain kinds of music and instruments already rejected by the Church for her places of worship.
THE NEW THEOLOGY of modernism that founds the whole Catholic religion on the evolution of the religious instinct of the first Christian communities.
THE NEW CATECHISMS, purveyors more or less covertly of the modernist errors and not infrequently vehicles of subversive political doctrines.
THE THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION, based on a new interpretation of the Gospel, completely opposed to the teachings always held by the Church, and calculated to favor Marxist machinations.
THE TREND TOWARDS SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM that manifestly contradicts the whole social doctrine of the Church and scorns the excommunications of Pius XII directed against those who collaborate in any way with Communism.
THE SECULARIZATION OF THE CLERGY, causing grave scandal to the faith and the inevitable impoverishment of Christian life.
THE CONFORMING TO THE SPIRIT OF THE WORLD on the part of the clergy and the faithful in complete opposition to the teaching of Our Lord and to the spirit of mortification, teaching and example of Jesus Crucified.
THE REFORM OF THE SEMINARIES, carried out in line with these new tendencies.
THE OBSESSIVE CONCERN FOR HUMAN PROGRESS that leads to disregard for the specific purpose of the Church which is the salvation of souls.
THE DILUTION of true spirituality in a vague religious sentimentalism.
THE ECUMENISM that makes the Faith grow cold and makes us forget our Catholic identity, seeking to negate the antagonism between light and darkness, between Christ and Belial (cf. II Cor. 6:14-18), and leads to a panchristianity, "a most grave error and capable of destroying the foundations of the Catholic Faith at their base" (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos of Pius XI).
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, understood in the sense of an equalization of rights between truth and error, giving supremacy to a supposed subjective right of man, to the prejudice of the absolute right of Truth, of Good, of God, and as a consequence laicizing the State, rendered agnostic towards the true Religion.
THE HORIZONTALISM OF THE RELIGION OF MAN, that concretizes what St. Pius X calls the "monstrous and detestable iniquity proper to the times in which we are living, through which man substitutes himself for God" (Enc. Supremi Apostolatus).
DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE CHURCH by means of a collegial government in opposition to the hierarchical and monarchical constitution given to her by Our Lord.
LAICIZATION OF SOCIETY, that brings to life once more the cry of the Jews at the death of Jesus refusing to accept His social Kingship and not even recognizing in Him the Supreme Legislator of human society.
Thus, in the name of Faith, with tranquil conscience, we reject all those who introduce the "smoke of Satan" into the Church and apply themselves to her self-destruction (cf. Paul VI, allo. of 7/12/68).
What We Are For
We love, praise and adopt all the traditional practices, uses and customs of Holy Church that have contributed, and do contribute, so much to the sanctification of the faithful, among them, for example:
AURICULAR CONFESSION;
ESTEEM FOR THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE that ought to have pre-eminence over the active life;
USE OF THE CASSOCK AND HABIT by priests and religious, that marks so well their separation from the spirit of the world and keeps consciences alert to the spirit of Christ;
VENERATION OF IMAGES and relics of the saints;
COMMUNION RECEIVED ON THE TONGUE AND KNEELING, in token of respect and adoration;
PENANCES AND MORTIFICATIONS, internal and external;
THE ORNAMENTATION AND MAGNIFICENCE of the Churches which contribute so much to the splendor of worship;
THE SOLEMNITY AND POMP OF THEIR CEREMONIES, that so impress and move the good people and stimulating their devotion;
LATIN IN THE LITURGY, a factor of the unity and universality of the Church, a precious casket befitting the sacredness expressed by the liturgical prayers;
GREGORIAN CHANT, which has nourished piety for so many centuries.
In particular, we wish to profess and spread a deep and burning devotion to the Mother of God, in whose Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity and universal mediation we believe. We maintain that such practices of devotion, principally the holy Rosary, have a special efficacy for the sanctification of souls and the triumph of Holy Mother Church.
We profess a convinced acceptance and a sincere love of holy priestly celibacy, one of the sources of pastoral zeal that constitutes a firm response to the hedonism in which the neo-pagan society of our day is immersed.
Our position is not one of rebellion, nor of disobedience, or contestation, but of fidelity. It is a question of loyalty to the Faith of our baptism, to our priesthood, to our legitimate superiors and to the faithful.
We do not judge the consciences of others, since this judgment belongs to God, we only claim the right and exercise the duty of every Catholic. We confront what is taught today with what was always taught; we hold on to what is of the Church and refuse what serves only for her self-destruction, whoever may promote it knowingly or unknowingly.
We are not against progress if it represents an organic development of Revelation; we are against that false "progress" that is not consistent with Tradition but is in discontinuity with it.
It is not a matter of indiscriminate attachment to the past, but of clinging to the Faith which does not pass away.
We believe in the permanence of the doctrine traditionally taught by the Church and in the objective sense of the formulas that express the dogma and truth that Holy Church teaches.
We believe that the truths of Faith remain absolutely independent of the ways of thinking and living of men, since Truth comes from God through the Church and her Tradition and does not arise from the instinct and religious feeling of the people.
We have absolute certainty that our position is legitimate, not by virtue of our arguments and ideas, but because we take our stand on that which the Church herself has taught us and in such a way that we could make our own the words of St. Augustine when he exclaimed that, if what we believe were an error, then God Himself would have deceived us.
We have firm hope that within a short time the Church will have overcome the current crisis she is living through, and, dissipating the darkness of heresy will return to shine out as always, as a glorious beacon to the nations: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16,18).
We love from the bottom of our hearts our Mother, the Holy Church, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman. For her we wish to give our lives if it is necessary.
Campos, Easter 1982
(25 signatures appended; 5 monsignori, 20 priests)
|
|
|
|
| The CDC’s Mask Mandate Study: Debunked |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-07-2021, 10:36 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
The CDC’s Mask Mandate Study: Debunked
American Institute Economic Research | March 4, 2021
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published a February 2021 MMWR report entitled “Decline in COVID-19 Hospitalization Growth Rates Associated with Statewide Mask Mandates — 10 States, March–October 2020.” This report focused on 10 sites that had been included in the Covid-19 Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network.
This CDC report described a decrease in hospitalization rates of growth of up to 5.6% in adults (18-65 years old) and attributed this to the use of masking and/or the introduction of mask mandates in the various sites. These rates were compared to those obtained from a 4-week period of time prior to the introduction of mask mandates. In so doing, and by way of regression analysis, the reduced rates of hospitalization were attributed to the introduction of statewide mask mandates.
Firstly, the initial publication by the CDC (February 5/February 12th, 2021) was plagued with important inaccuracies that were then fortunately addressed in an updated erratum (February 26th 2021). We applaud the CDC for taking the steps required to correct these errors. Reporting done by the CDC, which is generally considered as the premier public health agency in the US, must be of the highest quality, particularly since advice rendered by the CDC is also relied upon worldwide.
En face, CDC’s conclusion on mandates might appear to make sense unless one is familiar with the scientific data pertaining to the ineffectiveness of masking for prevention of the spread of Covid-19 (e.g. references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) in which case the findings in fact contradict most of what is now known. The CDC’s conclusion might have made more sense if the real-world evidence we have about mandates did not actually exist (e.g. references 1, 2, 3, 4).
Does the CDC really think that masks prevent the wearer from getting Covid, or from spreading it to others? The CDC admits that the scientific evidence is mixed, as their most recent report glosses over many unanswered scientific questions. But even if it were clear – or clear enough – as a scientific matter that masks properly used could reduce transmission, it is a leap to conclude that a governmental mandate to wear masks will do more good than harm, even as a strictly biological or epidemiological matter. Mask mandates may not be followed; masks worn as a result of a mandate may not be used properly; some mask practices like double masking can do harm, particularly to children; and even if a mask mandate results in some increased number of masks being worn and worn properly, the mandate and the associated publicity may reduce the public’s attention to other more effective safeguards, such as meticulous hygiene practices.
Thus, it is not surprising that the CDC’s own recent conclusion on the use of nonpharmaceutical measures such as face masks in pandemic influenza, warned that scientific “evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission…” Moreover, in the WHO’s 2019 guidance document on nonpharmaceutical public health measures in a pandemic, they reported as to face masks that “there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission…” Similarly, in the fine print to a recent double-blind, double-masking simulation the CDC stated that
Quote: “The findings of these simulations [supporting mask usage] should neither be generalized to the effectiveness …nor interpreted as being representative of the effectiveness of these masks when worn in real-world settings.”
Just look at the data from Jonas F. Ludvigsson that is emerging from Sweden in children 16 years old and under when preschools and schools were kept open and there were no face masks though social distancing was fostered. The result was zero (0) deaths from COVID-19 in 1.95 million Swedish children across the study period. The number of infections was exceedingly low, the number of hospitalizations was exceedingly low, and there were no deaths in children with COVID-19, all this despite not wearing masks due to no schoolwide mask mandate. Is this merely a perfunctory and legally prudent warning by the CDC that “your mileage may vary?” Or is it more like a hot mutual fund telling you that “past performance is no guarantee of future results.” What is the CDC really trying to say about face masks and why so much confusion?
We have reservations about the methodology employed and conclusions drawn in the CDC double mask study which we will address in a separate discussion but again their disclaimer as noted above: “The findings of these simulations should neither be generalized to the effectiveness …nor interpreted as being representative of the effectiveness of these masks when worn in real-world settings” seeds thoughts of doubt in relation to the value of this report. Why then, would the CDC even bother to publicize these findings? What is the public health impact? What is the benefit?
Moreover, the CDC even indicated in the double mask study that there are harms e.g. impediments to breathing, due to double masking. Indeed, the harms (e.g. reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) are very real when face masks are used yet are often dismissed and not even discussed by the media medical establishment or government bureaucrats.
In relation to this, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIAID created appreciable confusion by initially suggesting and encouraging the use of double masks instead of one. Dr. Fauci then reversed his statements on the use of double masks. Dr. Fauci’s advisories took on a form of double speak which has an appearance of randomness or worse, capriciousness. This can only distort the desperately needed advice by the public at large; unsound advice can be very damaging on several levels. This random form of advice-giving was not reflective of a single event. For example, while touting vaccines as the only way for society to emerge back to normal from the pandemic, Dr. Fauci is now advising that in fact, even with vaccinations, people should still not attend public gatherings and restaurants, and that such restrictions could be in place until end of 2021. While changes in advice are required when new data emerge, we hold that this was definitely not the case with respect to masking (or vaccination for that matter).
Below are the main scientific shortcomings or analytical ambiguities in the CDC’s most recent MMWR report on mask mandates:
- The CDC’s main evidence, a regression study based on selected sites in ten states with masking mandates from March through October 2020, did not include the four-month period from November through February 2021 (which might have controlled for other possibly contributing factors such as sunlight and vitamin D) and did not appear to take into account the possible effects of such factors as school closures or changes in social distancing practices. We point out that during the period of March 22, 2020 to October 12, 2020 this is actually representative of the spring, summer and early fall seasons when outdoor activity increases. Of course, this leads to more exposure to sunlight with the attendant generation of active vitamin D metabolites, while at the same time there are marked reductions in confinement within enclosed spaces which would necessarily reduce the opportunities for transmission of disease. A more stringent approach to the analyses, including the use of all available data (i.e. not excluding a full 4-month period of time), might have led conceivably to a conclusion that there was in fact no significant effect of mask mandates on disease or case rates. And in concert with the CDC’s disclaimers noted above, the CDC indicated in their own report that the conclusions described in the study in favour of masking were, at best, only moderately reliable.
- The CDC analyzed changes in hospitalizations, but did not compare infection, disease, or death rates between states with and without masking mandates. Available evidence of that nature suggests that the course of the pandemic was not affected by state masking mandates.
- The CDC used a least squares fit regression analysis (OLS) (using “x” as mask wearing and the dependent/outcome to the “y” variable which is the number of Covid cases) despite the fact that simple regression is not the optimal approach and, we believe, should be replaced with Orthogonal Distance Regression (ODR) which would yield more reliable findings.
- Based on the reporting, it appears that the CDC’s regression analysis was based on data from limited sites within a state, and not the entire state.
- The CDC report failed to address/discuss recent potent research data based on high-quality case-controlled analyses, as well as a high-quality Danish randomized controlled trial study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine which found no statistically or clinically significant impact of mask-use in regard to the rate of infection with SARS CoV-2, or a recent NEJM publication (prospective cohort CHARM study) where researchers studied SARS-CoV-2 transmission among Marine recruits at Parris Island (n=1,848) who volunteered, underwent a 2-week quarantine at home that was followed by a second 2-week quarantine in a closed college campus setting. The predominant finding was that despite the very strict and enforced quarantine, including 2 full weeks of supervised confinement and then enforced social distancing and masking protocols, the rate of transmission was not reduced and in fact seemed to be higher than expected, despite the strong experimental design and the rigor associated with carrying out the study.
- The CDC report does not address and contextualize substantial “real world” experience showing that adding mandates where there is already substantial mask wearing has little effect, and that mask mandates that were followed can be correlated with increased case counts (e.g. references 1, 2, 3, 4). This obviously may not be cause and effect, but the same criticism can be levied against correlations or regressions going in the opposite direction.
Based on our assessment of this CDC mask mandate report, we find ourselves troubled by the study methods themselves and by extension, the conclusions drawn. The real-world evidence exists and indicates that in various countries and US states, when mask mandates were followed consistently, there was an inexorable increase in case counts. We have seen that in states and countries that already have a high frequency of mask wearing that adding mandates had little effect. There was no (zero) benefit of adding a mask mandate in Austria, Germany, France, Spain, UK, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, and Italy, and states like California, Hawaii, and Texas. Importantly, we do not ascribe a cause-effect relationship between the implementation of mask mandates and the rise in case rates, but we also demand the same approach when it comes to claiming some sort of causal relationship between the introduction of mask mandates and likely claims by the CDC that their findings could support their implementation countrywide.
We think that inclusion of such evidence on the failures of masks mandates globally and states within the US would have made for more balanced, comprehensive, and fully-informed reporting. Specifically, when we consider the evidence on mask mandates,
Quote: “in states with a mandate in effect, there were 9,605,256 confirmed Covid-19 cases, which works out to an average of 27 cases per 100,000 people per day. When states didn’t have a statewide order—including states that never even had mandates, coupled with the period of time states with mandates still didn’t have a mandate in place—there were 5,781,716 cases, averaging 17 cases per 100,000 people per day. In other words, protective-mask mandates have a poor track record insofar as fighting this pandemic. States with mandates in place produced an average of 10 more reported infections per 100,000 people per day than states without mandates.”
The blind acceptance of the current unsupported dogma has become so entrenched that if cases do go up, the experts wedded to the universal use of masks then claim that this is good news and infer that the masking mandate prevented even more cases from occurring. This is a fine example of tautology and defies reason. We are very troubled by this type of scientific reporting and inference, for it is based on assumptions, supposition, and speculation.
Masks for the general population as they are currently used (surgical masks and the cloth masks), are ineffective (particularly when used without other mitigation) and the body of evidence (see AIER) is clear. A recent op-ed in the Washington Post spoke to mask wearing by everyone during the 1918 flu pandemic, with the conclusion that masks were useless. We embrace fully the contention by Klompas in the NEJM that
Quote: “what is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone could, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.”
We are particularly alarmed by the harms of masking and the failure by top US agencies and leadership (as well as the media and ‘media’ medical experts) to discuss or highlight harms in any discourse on masking.
We end by imploring the CDC to take our critique in the spirit in which it was generated. We welcome continued, rigorous scientific examination of these important societal lockdowns, school closures, and masking and broader mask mandate issues by CDC and others. We are entirely willing to consider any evidence that contradicts what we have seen which suggests that societal lockdowns and school closures are not effective, and as presented here, suggests that mask mandates are ineffective. Most importantly, to maintain the validity of scientific research as a tool, and the public’s confidence in such research, reports on the results of such research should more comprehensively address the weakness or ambiguities that exist, as well as the conclusions the reporting agency supports.
Trusting the science means relying on the scientific process and method and not merely ‘following the leader.’ It is not the same as trusting, without verification, the conclusory statements of human beings simply because they have scientific training or credentials. This is especially so if their views and inquiry have become politicized. Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard’s Medical School has recently commented on the present Covid-19 scientific and research environment by stating, “After 300 years, the Age of Enlightenment has ended.”
Sadly, we must agree, that it’s not just that the age of enlightenment has come to an end, but indeed, that the science itself has been politicized and severely corrupted.
Contributing Authors- Paul E Alexander MSc PhD, McMaster University and GUIDE Research Methods Group, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada elias98_99@yahoo.com
- Howard C. Tenenbaum DDS, Dip. Perio., PhD, FRCD© Centre for Advanced Dental Research and Care, Mount Sinai Hospital, and Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Ramin Oskoui, MD, CEO, Foxhall Cardiology, PC, Washington, DC oskouimd@gmail.com
- Dr. Parvez Dara, MD, MBA, daraparvez@gmail.com
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Third Sunday of Lent |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-07-2021, 06:44 AM - Forum: Lent
- Replies (6)
|
|
INSTRUCTION ON THE THIRD SUNDAY IN LENT, called OCULI.
Taken from Fr. Goffine's Explanations of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays, Holydays, and Festivals throughout the Ecclesiastical Year
36th edition, 1880
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victorianweb.org%2Fa...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victorianweb.org%2Fart%2Fillustration%2Fgerman%2Fschnorr%2F82.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
THE Introit of this day's Mass, which begins with the word Oculi, is the prayer of a soul imploring deliverance from the snares of the devil: My eyes are ever towards the Lord: for he shall pluck my feet out of the snare: look thou upon me, and have mercy on me, for I am alone and poor. To thee, O Lord, have I lifted up my soul: in thee, O my God, I put my trust: let me not be ashamed. (Fs. xxiv.) Glory be to the Father, &c.
PRAYER OF THE CHURCH. We beseech Thee, Almighty God, regard the desires of the humble, and stretch forth the right hand of Thy majesty to be our defence. Through Jesus Christ, our Lord, &c.
EPISTLE. (Ephes. v. i — 9.) Brethren, be ye followers of God. as most dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us an oblation and a sacrifice to God, for an odor of sweetness. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you as becometh saints; nor obscenity, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which is to no purpose: but rather giving of thanks: for know yet his, and understand, that no fornicator, nor unclean, nor covetous person, which is a serving of idols. hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. Be ye not therefore partakers with them. For you were heretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord. Walk, then, as children of the light: for the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and justice, and truth.
Quote:EXPLANATION. The apostle requires us to imitate God, as good children, their father, in well-doing and in well-wishing; besides he declares that all covetousness, fornication, all disgraceful talk and equivocal jokes should be banished from Christian meetings, even that such things should not be so much as mentioned among us; because these vices unfailingly deprive us of heaven. He admonishes us not to let ourselves be deceived by the seducing words of those who seek to make these vices appear small, nothing more than pardonable human weaknesses; those who speak thus are the children of darkness and of the devil, they bring down the wrath of God upon themselves, and all who assent to their words. A Christian, a child of light, that is, of faith, should regard as as in that which faith and conscience tell him is such, and must live according to their precepts and not by false judgment of the wicked. Should any one seek to lead you away, ask yourself, my Christian soul, whether you would dare appear with such a deed before the judgment seat of God. Listen to the voice of your conscience, and let it decide, whether that which you are expected to do is good or bad, lawful or unlawful.
ASPIRATION. Place Thy fear, O God, before my mouth, that I may utter no vain, careless, much less improper and scandalous words. which may be the occasion of sin to my neighbor. Strengthen me; that I may not be deceived by flattering words, and become faithless to Thee.
GOSPEL. (Luke xi. 14—28. At that time, Jesus was casting out a devil, and the same was dumb. And when he had cast out the devil, the dumb spoke, and the multitudes were in admiration at it. But some of them said: He casteth out evils by Beelzebub the prince of devils. And others tempting, asked of him a sign from heaven. But he seeing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation, and house upon house shall fall. And if Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because you say, that through Beelzebub I cast out devils. Now if I cast out devils by Beelzebub, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judge. But if I by the finger of God cast out devils, doubtless the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things which he possesseth are in peace; but if a stronger than he come upon him, and overcome him, he will take away all his armor wherein he trusted, and will distribute his spoils. He that is not with me Is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through places without water, seeking rest; and not finding, he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out: and when he is come, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then he goeth, and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and entering in they dwell there. And the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. But he said: Yea rather blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.
Can a man be really possessed of a devil?
It is the doctrine of the Catholic Church that the evil spirit most perniciously influences man in a twofold manner: by enticing his soul to sin, and then influencing his body which he often entirely or partially possesses, manifesting himself by madness, convulsions, insanity, &c. Many texts of Scripture, and the writings of the Fathers speak of this possession. St. Cyprian writes: "We can expel the swarms of impure spirits, who for the ruin of the soul, enter into the bodies of men, and we can compel them to acknowledge their presence, by the force of powerful words." Possession takes place by the permission of God either for trial or as a punishment of sin committed, (i Cor. v. 5.) and the Church from her Head, Jesus, who expelled so many devils, has received the power of casting them out as He did. (Mark xvi. 17.; Acts v. 16., viii. 6. 7., xvi. 18.&c.) She however warns her ministers, the priests, who by their ordination have received the power to expel the evil spirits, to distinguish carefully between possession and natural sickness, that they may not be deceived, (Rit. Rom.§.3. §. 5—10.) and the faithful should guard against looking upon every unusual, unhealthy appearance as an influence of Satan, and should give no ear to impostors,but in order not to be deceived, should turn to an experienced physician or to their pastor.
What is understood by a dumb devil?
The literal meaning of this is the evil enemy, who sometimes so torments those whom he possesses that they lose the power of speech; in a spiritual sense, we may understand it to mean the shame which the devil takes away from the sinner, when he commits the sin, but gives back again, as false shame, before confession, so that the sinner conceals the sin, and thereby falls deeper.
How does Christ still cast out dumb devils?
By His grace with which He inwardly enlightens the sinner, so that he becomes keenly aware that the sins which he has concealed in confession, will one day be known to the whole world, and thus encourages him to overcome his false shame. "Be not ashamed to confess to one man," says St. Augustine, "that which you were not ashamed to do with one, perhaps, with many." Consider these words of the same saint: "Sincere confession subdues vice, conquers the evil one, shuts the door of hell, and opens the gates of paradise."
How did Christ prove, that He did not cast out devils by Beelzebub?
By showing that the kingdom of Satan could not stand, if one evil spirit were cast out by another; that they thus reproached their own sons who also cast out devils, and had not been accused of doing so by power from Beelzebub; by His own life and works which were in direct opposition to the devil, and by which the devil's works were destroyed. There is no better defence against calumny than an innocent life, and those who are slandered, find no better consolation than the thought of Christ who, notwithstanding His sanctity and His miracles, was not secure against calumniation.
What is is meant by the finger of God?
The power of God, by which Christ expelled the evil spirits, proved himself God, and the promised Redeemer.
Who is the strong man armed?
The evil one is so called, because he still retains the power and intellect of the angels, and. practiced by long experience, seeks in different ways to injure man if God permits.
How is the devil armed?
With the evil desires of men, with the perishable riches, honors, and pleasures of this world, with which he entices us to evil, deceives us, and casts us into eternal fire.
Who is the stronger one who took away the devil's armor?
Christ the Lord who came into this world that He might destroy the works and the kingdom of the devil, to expel the prince of darkness, (John xii. 31.) and to redeem us from his power. "The devil," says St Anthony, "is like a dragon caught by the Lord with the fishing-hook of the cross, tied with a halter, like a beast of burden, chained like a fugitive slave, and his lips pierced through with a ring, so that he may not devour any of the faithful. Now he sighs, like a miserable sparrow, caught by Christ and turned to derision, and thrown under the feet of the Christians. He who flattered himself, that he would possess the whole orbit of the earth, behold, he has to yield!"
Why docs Christ say: He who is not with me, is against me?
These words were intended in the first place for the Pharisees who did not acknowledge Christ as the Messiah, would not fight with Him against Satan's power, but rather held the people back from reaching unity of faith and love of Christ. Like the Pharisees, all heretical teachers who, by their false doctrines, draw the faithful from communion with Christ and His Church, are similar to the devil, the father of heresy and lies. May all those, therefore, who think they can serve Christ and the world at the same time, consider that between truth and falsehood, between Christ and the world, there is no middle path; that Christ requires decision, either with Him, or against Him, either eternal happiness with Him, or without Him, everlasting- misery.
Who are understood by the dry places through which the evil spirit wanders and finds no rest?
"The dry places without water," says St. Gregory, "are the hearts of the just, who by the force of penance have drained the dampness of carnal desires." In such places the evil one indeed finds no rest, because there his malice finds no sympathy, and his wicked will no satisfaction.
Why does the evil spirit say: I will return into my house?
Because he is only contented there where he is welcomed and received: those who have purified their heart by confession, and driven Satan from it, but labor not to amend, again lose the grace of the Sacraments by sin, and thus void of virtue and grace, offer a beautiful and pleasant dwelling to the devil.
Why is it said: The last state becomes worse than the first?
Because a relapse generally draws more sins with it, and so it is said: the devil will return with seven other spirits more wicked than himself, by which may be understood the seven deadly sins, because after a relapse into sin conversion to God becomes more difficult, as a repeated return of the same sickness makes it harder to regain health; because by repetition sin easily becomes a habit and renders conversion almost impossible; because repeated relapses are followed by blindness of intellect, hardness of heart, and in the end eternal damnation.
Why did the woman lift up her voice?
This was by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to shame the Pharisees who, blinded by pride, neither professed nor acknowledged the divinity of Christ, whilst this humble woman not only confessed Jesus as God, but praised her who carried Him, whom heaven and earth cannot contain. Consider the great dignity of the Blessed Virgin, Mother of the Son of God, and hear her praises from the holy Fathers. St. Cyril thus salutes her: "Praise to thee, Blessed Mother of God: for thou art virginity itself, the sceptre of the true faith!" and St. Chrysostom: Hail, Mother, the throne, the glory, the heaven of the Church!" St. Ephrem: "Hail, only hope of the Fathers, herald of the apostles, glory of the martyrs, joy of the saints, and crown of the virgins, because of thy vast glory, and inaccessible light!"
Why did Christ call those happy who hear the word of God and keep it?
Because, as has been already said, it is not enough for salvation to hear the word of God, but it must also be practiced. Because Mary, the tender Mother of Jesus, did this most perfectly. Christ terms her more happy in it, than in having conceived, borne, and nursed Him.
SUPPLICATION. O Lord Jesus! true Light of the world, enlighten the eyes of my soul, that I may never be induced by the evil one to conceal a sin, through false shame, in the confessional, that on the day of general judgment my sins may not be published to the whole world. Strengthen me, O Jesus, that I may resist the arms of the devil by a penitent life, and especially by scorning the fear of man and worldly considerations, and guard against lapsing into sin, that I may not be lost, but through Thy merits may be delivered from all dangers and obtain heaven.
|
|
|
|
| April 16th - St. Benedict Joseph Labre and St. Engratia and Companions |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 03-06-2021, 11:09 PM - Forum: April
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Saint Benedict Joseph Labre
Mendicant, Pilgrim
(1748-1783)
Saint Benedict Joseph Labre was born in the village of Amettes, near Boulogne in France, on March 26, 1748. He was the eldest of a family of fifteen children. From his earliest years he manifested exceptional piety, and was particularly attracted to the Blessed Sacrament of the altar. His early education was confided to one of his uncles, who was the parish priest of Erin, in view of his future ordination. He was not certain, however, that he was called to the priesthood, and said, It is very beautiful to be a priest, but I fear losing my soul while saving others. He desired the contemplative life and entered the Carthusian Order. But it was not long before his Superiors decided he did not have the vocation to that Order.
After making several more requests to enter monasteries where he might serve God according to his heart's desire, he was finally received in November 1769 by the Cistercians, whom he greatly edified by his silent prayer and communion with God. His happiness, however, proved to be short-lived; he was taken very ill and again his Superiors decided that he was not called to be one of their number. Providence had permitted these events. Upon his recovery, he discovered God's holy will for him, which was, he wrote, that remaining in the midst of the world, he devoutly visit as a pilgrim the famous places of Christian devotion.
With this purpose ever before him, he made solitary pilgrimages to many of the great shrines of Europe, taking with him only a rosary, a crucifix, and a little sack containing his New Testament, the Imitation of Christ and a Breviary. He visited the shrine of Our Lady of Loreto in Italy no fewer than ten times during his life.
One writer tells us that he seemed to have been destined by God to recall to men's mind the poverty of Christ. He ate nothing but the fragments he received from charity, and never kept any food given him for another day, becoming himself a provider for the poor with his surplus. He slept outdoors as a rule, and esteemed himself happy in suffering hunger, thirst, heat, rain, cold and snow. He was ordinarily regarded as a fool, and was often the brunt of mockery by children and bystanders. No mistreatment could discourage him, since he kept ever before his mind the mortified life of the Master and His Blessed Mother.
He loved most of all the Church of Our Lady of the Mountains in Rome. He spent much time in this, his favorite place of devotion, and on Wednesday of Holy Week in the year 1783, when he went to pray, he was taken suddenly ill, and expired while those who attended him in his last moments were saying the invocation of the litany of the dying: Holy Mary, pray for him.
Saint Engratia
and her Eighteen Companions Martyrs
Virgin, Martyr
(† 303)
The church celebrates on this day the triumph of Saint Engratia, a virgin martyr who was a native of Portugal. Her father had promised her in marriage to a man of quality in Rousillon, Gaul, and to accompany her there, he sent as her escort for the marriage her uncle Lupercius and a brilliant suite of sixteen other noblemen, as well as a servant named Julie.
When they arrived at Saragossa, she learned of the horrible massacre of Christians being carried on at that time, and of the torments they were enduring at the hand of Dacian, who governed that region in the name of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian. Inspired with a divine heroism, she resolved to attempt to change his dispositions, or if she could not do so, to take part herself in the glory of these generous soldiers of Christ, and mingle her blood with theirs.
She obtained an audience with the persecutor. Saying she was moved with compassion for her brethren who, despite their innocence, were being slain without mercy, she asked him, How can you shed the blood of so many persons who have done nothing but adore the true God and despise vain idols? Dacian, hearing her gentle reproaches, immediately had her imprisoned and sought out her companions, whom he also cast into prison. They affirmed at his tribunal that they too were Christians, and all were cruelly scourged. Saint Engratia was subjected to the most cruel and barbarous torments; abandoned in prison, she died of her wounds which festered there. Her death occurred in April of the year 303.
Saint Lupercius, with the seventeen nobles and Julie, had already been decapitated. Dacian, still not satiated with blood, massacred great numbers of other Christians of Saragossa who are honored on November 3rd under the title of the Countless Martyrs of Saragossa. Their bodies were burned with those of several malefactors, imprisoned at the same time, but it is said that the ashes of the martyrs separated and formed a lot apart, called the masse blanche.
The relics of Saint Engratia, who was buried by the Christians of Saragossa, have always been held in high honor in Spain, at Saragossa in particular.
|
|
|
|
| Prayer to the Shoulder Wound of Christ by St. Bernard of Clairvaux |
|
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-06-2021, 09:41 PM - Forum: In Honor of Our Lord
- No Replies
|
|
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, after receiving the message from Christ regarding the pain he experienced in his shoulder, sought to foster devotion to the Shoulder Wound of Christ, and penned this prayer:
Prayer to the Shoulder Wound of Christ
Most loving Jesus, meek Lamb of God, I, a miserable sinner, salute and worship the most Sacred Wound of Thy Shoulder on which Thou didst bear Thy heavy Cross which so tore Thy flesh and laid bare Thy Bones as to inflict on Thee an anguish greater than any other wound of Thy Most Blessed Body. I adore Thee, O Jesus most sorrowful; I praise and glorify Thee, and give Thee thanks for this most sacred and painful Wound, beseeching Thee by that exceeding pain, and by the crushing burden of Thy heavy Cross to be merciful to me, a sinner, to forgive me all my mortal and venial sins, and to lead me on towards Heaven along the Way of Thy Cross. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Prayer in Honor to the Precious Blood - Devotion to the Passion |
|
Posted by: Hildegard of Bingen - 03-06-2021, 09:33 PM - Forum: In Honor of Our Lord
- No Replies
|
|
DEVOTION TO THE PASSION
Prayer in Honor to the Precious Blood
(Taken from St. Alphonsus’ Prayer-Book – pages 453)
So, then my Jesus, in order to save my soul, Thou hast prepared a bath of Thine own Blood wherein to cleanse it from the filth of its sins. If, then, our souls have been bought by Thy Blood, “For you are bought with a great price” (I Cor. Vi. 20), it is a sign that Thou lovest them much; and as Thou dost love them, let us pray thus to Thee: “We therefore pray Thee to help thy servants, whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy precious Blood.” It is true that by my sins I have separated myself form Thee, and have knowingly lost Thee. But remember, my Jesus, that Thou hast bought me with Thy Blood. Ah, may this Blood not have been given in vain for me, which was shed with so much grief and so much love. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: No Compromise with Modernist Rome! |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2021, 03:23 PM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
No Compromise with Modernist Rome!
Transcript of a Sermon given in Chicago, Feast of the Circumcision, 1st January 2015
by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
The feast today of the octave of the nativity of Our Lord and the circumcision of Jesus Christ.
Let us hear first the epistle of St. Paul to Titus:
Quote:Beloved, the grace of God our savior has appeared to all men, instructing us, in order that rejecting ungodliness and worldly lust, we may live temperately and justly and piously in this world. Looking for the blessed hope and glorious coming of Our Lord, great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Who gave Himself to us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity and cleanse for Himself an acceptable people pursuing good works. Thus speak and exhort in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
And the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to St. Luke, chapter 2:
Quote:At that time, when 8 days were fulfilled for the circumcision of the child, His name was called Jesus. The name given him by the Angel before he was conceived in the womb. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.
My dear faithful, in the name of Rev. Fr. Charles Ward, our prior, and of my confreres, our priests and my own name, I wish you a happy and saintly new year. Although, the situation of [the] crisis in the Church is worsening. After the recent episcopal synod, in October 2014, in Rome. Let us, my dear faithful, let us oppose our happiness with true Faith.
And our saintliness of the state of grace and of our striving towards holiness of all Christian virtues against the unhappiness and sadness of this world. Full of heresies and apostasy, the loss of the Catholic Faith. And let us also oppose our happiness, Christian happiness, against the impiety of sin of all kinds. The advocates of which are the most important of the authorities in the Church. The Church, my dear faithful, on this feast day, the first day of the year, is used to sing first of all a Miserere at the end of the past year. To express our sadness for our sins and our hope for forgiveness for the sins of past year. And to sing today, a Te Deum, at the beginning of the new year. To thank God for giving us one year more. To praise Him. To serve Him. In saintliness and justice, as St. Paul says to Titus. And to grow into holiness. To compensate the impiety of our generation by the piety of our Christian life.
Let me, my dear faithful, let me explain to you the sadness of the crisis in the Church and in the world. To leave you a few advice, of hope, in this new year.
So first point, the sad increase of the seriousness of the crisis in the Church today. The world and the Catholic Church, it's Herself, experience what Sr. Lucy of Fatima called a diabolical disorientation. Diabolical; from the Devil. Planned from the Devil. Planned from the Freemasonry. Years and years and centuries ago, that is satanic. A satanical disorientation that is to say that, man cannot lead himself toward the true orientation. Man is lost. First of all, in the world and secondly, in the Church Herself.
First of all in the world, the disorientation in the world. For instance, the wars of the Islam against Christians in Pakistan, in Iraq, in Syria and many other countries. Where Christians are killed, tortured, chased, exiled. Where churches, treasuries of liturgy and Christian culture, are destroyed. Daily. By the warriors of the so-called “Islamic state”. With a complicity and the weapons of our own countries. It is horrible. And these crimes are sins that call for God's wrath. And in our own countries, not only in Iraq and Syria, in our own countries in the West, the millions of innocent children die daily. On the knives and the chemical poisons of medical torturers and executioners, what we call the sin of abortion. You understand?
These are the wide scale renewal of the murder of the Holy Innocents. There is now a sea of blood covering our countries and howling towards heaven for vengeance. For God's vengeance. That is the world of today. And now the Church of today. The last synod of the bishops in Rome has advocated the acceptation by the Church of so-called “marriages”, you know what I mean. Unions between two men or two women. That is a crime of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament in your Holy Bible. You can read it; how God punished the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. These two towns full of sinners, of such sinners, attracted upon them and their two cities, the fire of heaven. Were put in ruins, their cities. And the ruins of which, are still existing if you visit Palestine, you will see the ruins of these towns on the amount of sulphur and toxic salts. As the visible sign of the reprobation and chastisement by God and of the proof of their shameful sins. That is a synod of Rome to advocate sodomy.
And secondly, the same synod accepted to contemplate the access to the Holy Communion of those Christians who are married, and then divorced, and “re-married”. The word re-married is wrong, because no true marriage is possible. Not at all re-married, but united by a civil union, which is only a legal concubinage. A legal concubinage. I search in my dictionary the word “concubinage”; I could not find it! It has disappeared from the dictionary. Interesting! You cannot find this word because concubinage, that is to say the horrible cohabitation of unmarried man and woman, or unmarried young man and young woman, is not more considered as a sin. As a shame. As a reprehensible behavior.
Thus, speaking of concubinage today, is an uncorrect [sic] way of speaking. It ought not figure to appear in the dictionary. They suppress sin, it is simple! But we do not suppress the existence of the sin. So it is impossible to people who are still married, who divorced and then pretend to remarry. It's impossible to go to receive the Holy Communion! They are in a state of mortal sin! I do not judge themselves, but I judge the state in which they are. They are unable, unworthy to receive the Holy Communion! The Holy Communion is a sign of our union of our soul with God! And the Holy Father, our Holy Father, Pope Francis, my dear faithful, what a shame! He did not immediately condemn such proposals of the synod, but he postponed. He delayed the decision to the following synod this year. And he said that he agreed with Cardinal Kasper the advocate of these criminal attempts again the holy virtue of chastity and against the holiness of Christian marriage. That he agreed with Cardinal Kasper! And then, our pope, poor Pope Francis, you know, that he punished the Franciscans of the Immaculate who wanted to keep back, to take back the Holy Mass of all times! And he condemned them, he removed their superior general and he forbade them to say the Traditional Mass. Only 6 priests among almost 200 priests are allowed to pray the Traditional Mass. All the others are forbidden to pray the True Mass! By order of Pope Francis. That is the situation in the Church!
First point, my advices for this new year. My resolution and my direction for you, as a bishop of the Society of St. Pius X, as the oldest member of our society. These are my direction and advices. First of all, my dear faithful, keep the Faith! Do keep the Faith. The treasury of the Catholic Faith. The faith of our fathers! The faith of the martyrs! The faith of the Catholic Rome! That Rome, which is unchangeable, unchanging Rome, the true Rome, we belong to the true Rome! Let us keep the faith of the true Rome. A faith which is unchanging. As immutable as God is immutable. In His mystery. So first of all, first point: keep the Faith!
Second point, be sure, my dear faithful, be sure there is no question of making any compromise and compromission [sic] between the Society of St. Pius X and the occupying powers of the church. We never will draw [the Society of] St. Pius X to the new religion. St. Pius X would not have accepted to be reconciled with the new religion! So, be sure, there will be no compromise, no compromission [sic] with the powers occupying the church. And let us try to watch first on our survival in this crisis of the Church. On our survival which may be, will be the salvation of the Church Herself! So second point, no question of compromise.
Third point, we will apply what Archbishop Lefebvre himself [our ... founder] wrote in his Spiritual Journey, a book I encourage you to read. The last book he wrote before his death, a spiritual journey, that is, as he used to say, his spiritual testament. What our Archbishop Lefebvre wrote for us in 1990, for us, as a spiritual testament. I quote him, “It is a strict duty for every [any] priest who wills to remain Catholic to separate off from the conciliar church, as long as she does not recover the Tradition of the Magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic Faith!” These are the words of our founder, I repeat. “It is a strict duty for any priest who wills to remain Catholic to separate off from the conciliar church, the so-called “conciliar church”, as long as she does not recover the Tradition of the Magisterium and of the Faith of all times!”
Fourth point, that does not prevent the Society of the St. Pius X from meeting some prelates of conciliar bishops in order to help them to convert to Tradition. We continue to try to convert them to Tradition. By private meetings, with prelates of bishops. What are we doing today? To try to help them to convert to Tradition.
Fifth point, let us reject the false reasonings of some Catholics among our friends, false friends. Who say, I quote some of our friends, hear well, “with the time going on, because we are separated from the visible church,” they say, “we are little by little becoming a sect.” They say. “From which one never comes back to the church.” This is horrible reasoning. But they deserve to be repeated and understood! They say, our false friend, with the time going on, because we are separated from the visible church, they say, we are little by little becoming a sect from which one never comes back to the church! I suppose that you never though of it and I could not believe my ears, hearing such a reasoning!
First of all, the visible church? We are the visible Church! Who practice visibly the True Faith. We have the unity of the Faith. We have the saintliness of the Sacraments and of our lives. We are Catholics because of our Faith in the Society and the true Christians are spread all out throughout the world. We are Apostolic who have still the Faith of the Apostles. We possess the full notes of the Catholic Church: Unity, Saintliness, Catholicity, Apostolicity. We are of the Church! We are in the Church! We are still in the bosom of the Church! Who are in the heart of the Church. And those who are not in this Faith of all the days of the Church, are not in the visible Church. Are visibly out of the Church. If they lose the Faith, they are visibly outside the Church! And not a question, naturally, to become a sect. We receive everybody here, all Catholics who want to attend the Holy Mass, are received with open arms! We are not a sect! We are not closed on ourselves. We have a parish of the Catholic Church. That must be clear, my dear faithful. Those who are sects are those false Christians that draw the Church into hell! And destroy the Church! These are the sects.
Sixth point, let us reject also the wrong supposition of some of our friends, bad friends, who say the Society of St. Pius X is now in an abnormal situation. Because we are not acknowledged by the church. The Society of St. Pius X must come back to a normal situation and receive a canonical status from Rome. That is wrong! That is false! We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome! We possess the Faith, the Sacrament and the disposition to submit to the Pope. We have the Faith, the true Sacraments and the disposition of to obey the Pope! And the bishops. We are of the disposition. We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome, now! We have not to come back! These people in Rome have to come back, to Tradition. Let us not reverse the reality. We have not to come back.
But these Romans have to come back to their Tradition. To the Tradition of the Church. That is my sixth point. And my seventh point, the last, is that the problem, my dear faithful, is not to search what we could do in Rome. What we could do in the conciliar church! No! The only question is to know what testimony we ought to give today in the church. In front of the church. Publicly in the church. What testimony we ought to give to the church. As true Catholics! As a light on the candlestick and not under the bushel of the Second Vatican Council.
What is our duty? It is to bear witness! To bear witness for the Tradition of the Church! It is very simple. As true Catholic faithful. As saintly Christians who strive through their saintliness, first of all, let us continue praying our daily Rosary! The great means given by Our Lady to save our souls and the Church. Now, let us pray our daily Rosary, let us practice the 5 First Saturdays in spirit of expiation of the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Let us continue our devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Secondly, let us persevere. Keep on, in the true Catholic Faith, in the true catechisms, in the true Catholic Mass, in the true teaching of the Church, in the true Catholic schools. And thirdly, let us persevere, let us keep on striving towards saintliness. Our Lord Jesus Christ said, in the Gospel, “he who shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved!” I would say, he who shall persevere in the Faith til the end of the crisis in the Church, he will save his soul and the Church! Thanks to the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Amen.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.
|
|
|
|
| The Angelus [1982]: Roman Protestants |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2021, 10:44 AM - Forum: In Defense of Tradition
- No Replies
|
|
The Angelus - August 1982
Roman Protestants
by Reverend Basil Wrighton
The article which follows has been contributed by an English priest. It deals with matters that have been examined frequently in the previous pages of this magazine, but never, we are sure, in a manner which is so comprehensive but concise, and which so combines great erudition with elegance of style. Father Wrighton has articulated what we believe about the current malaise of the Church with such eloquence that we feel many of our readers would wish to pass it on to their friends and family who have not yet realized that the traditionalist movement represents the only viable means of preserving orthodox Catholicism within the Roman Rite today. We would particularly like to draw our readers' attention to his comments regarding the New Mass which correspond closely with the judgment of Archbishop Lefebvre published in our June issue. Father Wrighton claims that under the leadership of their bishops, the majority of Roman Catholics are being transformed into Roman Protestants, with one notable exception, "and the day will come when a restored Church will bless his name." We are deeply grateful to Father Wrighton for the privilege of printing this article. We are sure that our readers will return to it again and again, as we have done, and profit from it as much as we have.
WHATEVER the new "ecumenism" may say or mean, the plain fact remains that there is fundamental antithesis between "Catholic" and "Protestant." One has only to reflect on the history of these two religions to see how they contradict and exclude one another. While the one claims to expound a divine revelation with divinely conferred authority, and to administer supernatural sacraments as a means of divine grace, the other professes only to comment on the Scriptures by the light of human reason, and fights shy of anything supernatural or miraculous. While the one upholds the great Christian mysteries of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the other has become very doubtful about these mysteries and inclined to reject some or all of them as outdated superstitions. The same holds good concerning angels and devils, hell, purgatory, and heaven: these are very real for Catholics, very unreal for Protestants, at any rate for the contemporary type.
For the Protestant mentality is essentially skeptical and fissiparous. Once it had broken away from the parent Christian stock and committed itself to the vagaries of private judgment, it went on changing, evolving and splitting up into ever new sects. For a time it held on the main tenets of Christian faith, but as the sects became more and more liberal, they tended to drop them overboard or explain them away. Low-church grows into broad-church, and broad-church evolves toward no-church.
There have, of course, been reactions against this devolution. "Fundamentalist" minorities in various times and places have dug in their heels and refused to move with the times, hanging on to some semblance of the original faith. A more intellectual and more influential reaction was that of Newman and his Tractarian followers, who reasoned their way back to a substantially Catholic theology, emerging as a "high-church" party within the Anglican establishment. But they could never be really at home in that flock—how could they? Newman himself was quick to perceive that they had no future there; he thereupon made his submission to Rome, and many of his disciples followed him, to the great advantage of both the neophytes and their hosts. We never thought to see this historic decision reversed.
Now, however, since Vatican the Second we have been faced with the hitherto incredible spectacle of a mass movement in reverse—a movement of Catholics towards Protestantism. It began with the caucus of modernist prelates and their "experts" who brought off a successful coup d'etat at the first session of the Council, by tearing up the authorized agenda and substituting their own programme. This gave them a certain control of the proceedings and enabled them to devise loopholes and ambiguities in the acta for subsequent exploitation. The "pastoral" rather than dogmatic character of this Council made its texts all the more susceptible of tendentious interpretation.
It was of course the same progressive party which got the job of implementing the conciliar decrees, and that is where the trouble became most serious. The Party's first concern was with the liturgy, which of all the Church's institutions stood in least need of reform, and which no responsible Catholic wanted to change. The Council had made a few cautious, limited and reasonable concessions for the vernacular languages to be used in scriptural readings and prayers in which the people took a vocal part. These apart, it insisted on the retention of Latin. But that was not what the Party wanted. The existing lex orandi was an obstacle to their new religion, so it had to be destroyed. The Council text was defied, and the Holy Mass of all the Catholic ages, the Church's most sacred treasure and the most beautiful thing this side of heaven, was cunningly demolished by installments and replaced by a completely different rite, entirely vernacular and frequently vulgar, celebrated back to front, and shorn of the traditional gestures of reverence and the verbal safeguards of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine—just the things that Cranmer himself had suppressed. The sacrificial element was consigned to oblivion, and all the emphasis transferred to the "memorial" and "meal" elements, just as in the Protestant "Lord's Supper." The obvious purpose was to make the Eucharist so "ecumenical" that it could be shared by those who had no belief in either the Sacrifice or the Real Presence. Can one imagine anything more dastardly than this betrayal of the Holy of Holies for the beaux yeux of unbelievers? Yet the Modernists were allowed—and are still allowed—to get away with it and to impose it on the whole Church of the West. No such subversion has ever before been known in the Catholic Church.
And what a vernacular!—the shabby, ephemeral speech of the streets and the pubs brought into the sanctuary! The whole concept of a vernacular liturgy is indeed a monstrosity, only to be excused by total illiteracy of the worshippers. Are the Catholics of the West so illiterate that they cannot read even the simplest prayer book? Liturgy is an essentially sacred thing, eternal truths clad in an unchanging form: in a word, it must be hieratic, not demotic. The Church had been telling us this for centuries, and had repeated it emphatically as recently as 1962 (the Apostolic Constitution of John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia); but the Church was now made to eat her own words and swing over to the Protestant slogan of "a language understanded of the people"—as if Latin had been a mere mumbo-jumbo to our people for all these centuries!
Since the Novus Ordo Missae was designed as an "ecumenical" liturgy, ambivalence was essential to it. Hence the many alternative formulas (Confiteors, Canons, etc.) left to the option of the celebrant, together with the studied ambiguity of the wording where any definite Catholic doctrine (such as transubstantiation or sacrifice) is involved. Hence the abolition of the Offertory prayers, and the reduction of the Consecration to what can be taken as a mere narrative. The result of it all has been to stir up controversy among the faithful as to whether the new liturgy can be regarded as sacramentally valid. To take the negative view would amount to questioning the God-given authority of the Church which has sanctioned the changes. But a careful study of such works as Michael Davies' masterly trilogy on the Liturgical Revolution1 will show that the bare essentials of validity have been preserved, but in so thoroughly Protestantized a setting and mentality that lapses from validity are much more likely to occur, and the Catholic faith cannot be expected to survive or flourish in such an environment. All that used to protect and nourish this faith has been ruthlessly cut away in the interests of "ecumenism," and the effect of the revolution can be plainly seen in the vast exodus from the Church which has followed it.
The Novus Ordo was only a first step. The Party had many more changes up its sleeve. The revolution was to be "on-going," the faithful were to have no respite from shocks and scandals. Soon we had Communion in the Hand, a gratuitous profanation borrowed from the Dutch dissenters and railroaded into the Church elsewhere by admiring episcopal conferences in face of papal protest and popular disgust. Then came the Lay Ministers, male and female, handing out Holy Communion, while the priest looked on from his chair—unemployed, redundant. It is a galloping process of "desacralization." Nothing is now to be held sacred or inviolable. All that was sacred in our religion from time immemorial is being dragged down to a common and profane level, to adapt it to the abject spirit of this age.
So much for what is going on with official approval, within the widening limits of the law. I have said nothing about the spate of outrages and sacrileges which have sprung up in the wake of the Novus Ordo, for these should be abhorrent even to progressives. They simply did not happen under the old order; therefore the new order is responsible for them. But authority does nothing to correct them. There seems to be no limit to what the bishops will now tolerate—so long as the abuses are committed on the liberal, revolutionary side. But if any poor deprived Catholic on the other side attempts to revive the Holy Mass, then the fulminations begin! The only capital offence that remains, it seems, is fidelity to Catholic tradition.
When the President of Una Voce at an interview with Archbishop (now Cardinal) Benelli in Rome in October 1976, pointed out the existing liturgical chaos and asked how, in view of this state of things, the suppression of the old Mass could be justified, he was told that "those who wish to retain the old Mass have a different ecclesiology." This from one of the closest advisors of the then Pope; it meant that those who were faithful to Catholic tradition were now to be treated as dissidents. The phrase quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus2 as a criterion of orthodoxy had now been rejected in favor of a new Party Line which contradicted the Church's entire previous tradition. What was forbidden and condemned yesterday becomes lawful today, and mandatory tomorrow. What had always been seen as black, is now white, and vice versa—because the Party says so. This comes close to the Bolshevik criterion of morality: what is right or wrong is simply what helps or hinders the Party.
Pope Paul VI himself used to speak of a "new orientation" of the Church's life and liturgy following Vatican II, and the whole charge against Archbishop Lefebvre in that pontificate was that His Grace would not accept this fatal orientation. He could not accept it—we cannot accept it—because it is an entirely new thing in the Church, a new ethos incompatible with Catholic dogmatic tradition. If we accept this reorientation, we must hold that the Church's teaching has been utterly mistaken all through the past twenty centuries of its history, from the Apostles onward, until light dawned at last in the nineteen-sixties, thanks to Bugnini and his men. It was an about-turn, away from the supernatural and transcendent towards the natural and worldly, from the divine to the merely human. Those who have eyes to see can see more clearly every day that such a periagoge, if persisted in, can only lead to the destruction of the Catholic and Christian religion.
The Party, modernist and progressive, which seized power in the Church from the Council onwards and is constantly building it up by selective appointments, is moving in the same direction as the Protestant reformers whom it copied so closely in the new liturgy. But it is going much faster and further than they went. It is Liberal-Protestant, which means in the long run non-Christian and anti-Christian. It has allied itself with the secular humanism which now rules the Western world, and is even making overtures to the communist powers, after having rendered the Council virtually ineffectual by refusing to condemn the world's greatest menace.
It should be noted that the ideology of Liberal-Protestantism is practically the same as that of the Modernism which appeared somewhat later in the Catholic Church. It disintegrates traditional beliefs in much the same way, and both can be seen as concurrent stages in the destruction of Christianity itself. St. Pius X remarked this in his encyclical Pascendi in 1907: historical Protestantism and Modernism, he says, are successive stages in the progress to Atheism.
Contemporary liberals (e.g., those who write in ex-Catholic Tablet) are apt to crow with delight over the notion that the Catholic religion has undergone a "mutation" in consequence of Vatican II—or rather, "the spirit of Vatican II," a spook which as often as not is made to contradict the letter of the Council. They fail to understand, it seems, that the Catholic religion is of such a nature that a "mutation"—i.e., a radical and permanent change—can only destroy it.
From these observations, and from many others which could be mentioned, there emerges the picture of a Church which is unrecognizable as the Church we were brought up in—rather like an ugly stepmother, all spots and wrinkles, in place of the Holy Mother Church we knew and loved in pre-conciliar days. It is not only the ecclesiology that is different; everything is different. The bogus "ecumenism" aims at ironing out the distinctions of true and false in religion, so that Catholic doctrine goes into the melting pot with everything else. The Council of Trent and the Counter-Reformation are dismissed as no longer "relevant" to the "adult man" of the twentieth century. Christ's hierarchical Kingdom of God, transcending space and time, must now give place to the "People of God," this-worldly, democratic, liberal and egalitarian. The ministerial priesthood must no longer be distinguished from the common priesthood of the faithful, and the Pope must forego his supreme and paternal authority and resign himself to being a mere primus inter pares, the spokesman of the bishops, whose claim to "collegiality" implies that it is for them to decide all questions in committee, by a majority of votes.
With doctrine thus being whittled away for the sake of specious agreement with heterodox bodies, and with the supreme authority being put into commission, the prospect before the Conciliar Church becomes bleakly Protestant, and ultimately non-Christian. A further catastrophic development is that the Neo-Modernists, unlike the earlier breed, have now scrapped the Ten Commandments, done away with moral absolutes and the notion of sin as an offence against God, and reduced morality to the "situation ethics" of secular humanism, where literally everything is permitted as long as one thinks it meets one's needs of the moment or develops one's "personality."
Now that sin has been swept under the carpet, those two bastions of Catholic spirituality, confession and penance, are of course found to be superfluous. The deserted confessionals are being removed from the churches, and the sacrament, when it is used, tends to become a sort of psychiatric session. As for the laws of fasting and abstinence, they are virtually abolished. Before the Council about a hundred days of the year were affected by fasting or abstinence or both. Since then a series of wholesale swipes has reduced them to a derisory two days in the year! Another concession to Protestantism, which from its earliest days has despised these weapons of the spirit.
This progressive ideology has of course taken over the Catholic schools, seminaries and universities, and bought up the Catholic press: all these institutions are falling, or have already fallen, into the "ex-Catholic" category. Even the expensive schools run by the religious orders themselves have joined the Modernist bandwagon. Many faithful Catholics have found themselves obliged to take their children away from "Catholic" schools in order to save their faith. As for the others, the present hapless generation of children will, for the most part apparently, become a write-off. The only hope of a genuinely Catholic education lies now in new foundations, at the cost of much sacrifice and struggle for the faithful remnant. A grace-selected remnant there will certainly be, for the continuance of the Church, but the majority of our once-Catholic population, those who will not bestir themselves to resist and protest against what has been done to them, finding it easier to swim with the post-conciliar stream, are becoming daily and visibly more and more assimilated in manners, morals and beliefs to their Protestant neighbors, and will soon be indistinguishable from them. "Ecumenism" will then have attained its goal, not by a return of the separated brethren to the one true fold, but by a massive apostasy from that fold, led by its own shepherds—a massive sell-out of Catholic truth.
A fearful example of this sell-out may be seen in the "pastoral" councils and congresses of recent years—an updated kind of "robber councils" of lay persons and clerics, approved and attended by the national hierarchies for the furtherance of "renewal" or revolution. Among the most notorious have been those of Holland and America (the Detroit "Call to Action"), and (in 1980) Liverpool. At this latest festival of loquacity and pop-theology the participants (hand-picked Modernists, of course) called for the scrapping among other things, of considerable portions of the moral law (God's eternal law). At the end of it all, the bishops got up and effusively thanked and congratulated the pastoral freebooters. If anyone cares to remember this conciliabulum, it may well go down in history as the Latrocinium Liverpolitanum.3
What shall we call the multitudes of ex-Catholic shepherds and their sheep who have either defected or drifted into a new religion? Perhaps we might call them "Roman Protestants." We older Catholics did not like being called Roman Catholics, for we did not admit that there was any other kind of Catholics. But there are various kinds of Romans, and many kinds of Protestants; and Rome is now the headquarters, not only of the Catholic Church, but of the Modernist Mafia which has invaded and subjected it. At the English College in Rome, that venerable nursery of episcopabiles, we got occasional pep-talks on the cardinal virtue of romanita (Romishness). That was in the nineteen-twenties, when Rome was the citadel of orthodoxy, and we saw nothing incongruous in such a virtue. Things are very different in the Deutero-Vatican era, and I often wonder whether my contemporaries and epigoni, mitred or otherwise, might not have done well to dilute their romanita with a much stiffer dose of cattolicita. It might have saved some of them from ending up as Roman Protestants.
When obedience to the constant tradition of the Church is so clearly in conflict with obedience to certain office-holders who have departed from that tradition, we rank-and-file Catholics must use our common sense and opt for the superior obedience. The simple faithful have always done this in times of epidemic heresy. Such crises are happily very rare. The gravest in the Church's past history was the Arian crisis of the fourth century, when, as St. Jerome expressed it, "the whole world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian"; or, as Newman puts it, "there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the 'ecclesia docens'." We are living in such a crisis now, that of the Modernist Reformation. The Church was drugged for a major "mutation" in the nineteen-sixties, and is now gradually coming round to find itself Liberal-Protestant. It is in this situation that faithful Catholics are finding themselves faced with the stark alternative of becoming either recusants or renegades.
Sixteen hundred years ago, when the bulk of the hierarchy had strayed from the faith of Nicaea and even the Pope faltered for a time, St. Athanasius headed the faithful few who stood out for Catholic truth against a world in the grip of heresy. He had much to suffer, and was even excommunicated, but eventually his cause prevailed and the faith was saved. In our day likewise, amid the ceaseless babble of post-conciliar Newspeak, one episcopal voice has been heard to observe, in plain French, that one religion is not as good as another, that faith and morals are not variable with times and circumstances, and (with regard to "renewal") that the emperor has no clothes! For the audacity of these views, and for his fidelity to Catholic tradition, he is denounced and persecuted by the liberal establishment, but will not recant. His witness and his work continues, and the day will come when a restored Church will bless his name. Once again, magna est veritas et praevalebit.
O GOD, Who settest straight what has gone astray, and gatherest together what is scattered and keepest what Thou has gathered together, we beseech Thee in Thy mercy to pour down on Christian people the grace of union with Thee, that putting aside disunion and attaching themselves to the true shepherd of Thy Church they may be able to render Thee due service. Through our Lord. - Prayer from the Mass for the Healing of Schism
1. Part I, Cranmer's Godly Order; Part II, Pope John's Council; Part III, Pope Paul's New Mass; available for $20.00 postpaid, from The Angelus Press, Box 1187, Dickinson, TX 77539.
2. What has been believed always, everywhere, and by all.
3. "The Robber Council of Liverpool."
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Peter Scott [2003]: Why is there so little unity among traditional groups? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2021, 10:06 AM - Forum: Q&A: Catholic Answers to a Catholic Crisis
- No Replies
|
|
From the SSPX Archives - Catholic FAQs [2003]
Why is there so little unity among traditional groups?
Answered by Fr. Peter Scott
I can understand why you are scandalized by the division in the traditional movement. Many others have also been scandalized, until they realize that unity is impossible without a strong hierarchy to enforce it and insist upon it. There will only be true unity when we have once more a strong pope, backed up by docile bishops.
It is a part of the diversity of the Church that there be different groups, organizations, religious orders and activities to defend different aspects of Catholic Tradition. They complement one another, and should retain their specific differences in order to do their best for Holy Mother Church. This is in no way opposed to the unity of the Faith, which binds us all together. Thus in Tradition there are diverse orders of teaching sisters; there are active orders such as the Society of St. Pius X; and there are contemplatives, such as the Benedictines, Dominicans, Capuchins and Redemptorists. They all have a different role to play in the Church. There is also a place for lay organizations, and specific apostolates such as Fr. Gruner’s to promote devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. Despite their different methods and emphasis, all these organizations share a profound unity. However, there are some groups that cannot be considered a part of this unity. These are the sedevacantists and the communities (e.g., St. Peter’s, St. John’s, Institute of Christ the King, etc.) which accept the orthodoxy of the New Mass and Vatican II and which celebrate the Indult. Such are outside the moral unity of the traditional movement.
[NB: Bishop Fellay, as Superior General of the SSPX, formally accepted the "orthodoxy of the New Mass and Vatican II..." by his signing of the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.]
Clearly it is imperative that all these truly Catholic orders, organizations and apostolates work together. It seems clear that this profound unity can be found in all of those which are officially affiliated with the work of the Society of St. Pius X. It is when a group or activity refuses such an affiliation that it becomes forced either into a compromise with liberalism or into the excesses of rigorism.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Peter Scott Answers: Is it true to say that now there is a "conciliar" Church? |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-06-2021, 09:46 AM - Forum: Q&A: Catholic Answers to a Catholic Crisis
- No Replies
|
|
Is it true to say that now there is a "conciliar" Church?
Answered by Fr. Peter Scott
The term "conciliar" is an adjective that has long been used to describe those things that relate to the Second Vatican Council, such as the documents, commissions, or novel teachings such as Religious Liberty and Ecumenism. The question raises the objection as to whether this adjective can be used to describe the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council.
In order to respond to the question a clear distinction has to be made. If by the term "church" is understood the visible, hierarchical structure, founded upon the rock of St. Peter, then clearly there can only be one Church, the Catholic Church. If we were to call the Catholic Church after Vatican II "conciliar" in this sense, then we would claim that it is no longer Catholic at all, but instead a separate visible, hierarchical structure. However, this is manifestly false, both because the adepts of Vatican II have hijacked the visible hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church, and because they profess publicly to be Catholics.
However, there is another sense in which the term "conciliar" can rightly be applied to the majority of persons who profess to be Catholic, as well as to their ideas and opinions, profoundly influenced as they are by the Second Vatican Council.In this sense "conciliar" refers to the persons who have embraced and who promote the novelties of Vatican II, as well as to the novelties themselves. There are varying degrees of influence of the modern errors, from liberal Catholicism through rash opposition to Tradition to outright apostasy. The term conciliar or post-conciliar can consequently be applied to the modernist church, not as it is a canonical institution, but inasmuch and to the degree that it promotes the revolutionary errors of Vatican II.
Archbishop Lefebvre understood this reality very clearly, and the grave danger brought about by the infiltration of all these modernist principles within the very bosom of the Catholic Church. He had this to say of Rome in 1974, in his famous declaration of November 21:
Quote:We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this Faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.
In his book Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre explained how the end result of this Conciliar Church is to separate its members little by little from the true Catholic Church established by Our Lord. By this he means that its revolutionary principles of freedom at all cost separate the clergy and faithful little by little from Tradition and produce indifferentism for all religions, eventually destroying the Catholic faith in the one true Church, and bringing about a generalized apostasy, even of those persons who outwardly appear to still be members of the Catholic Church.
Quote:Certainly, the Church itself guards its sanctity and its sources of sanctification, but the control of its institutions by unfaithful popes and apostate bishops ruins the faith of the faithful and the clergy, sterilizes the instruments of grace, and favors the assault of all the powers of Hell which seem to triumph. This apostasy makes its members adulterers, schismatics opposed to all Tradition, separated from the past of the Church, and thus separated from the Church of today, in the measure that it remains faithful to the Church of Our Lord. [p.54]
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: Saint-Benedict-Joseph-Labre-5.jpg]](https://www.srpriscanwokorie.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Saint-Benedict-Joseph-Labre-5.jpg)
![[Image: hqdefault.jpg]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/87zz-Z5vNlI/hqdefault.jpg)
![[Image: i284008264518189030._szw480h1280_.jpg]](http://cdn.simplesite.com/i/70/6d/284008258745822576/i284008264518189030._szw480h1280_.jpg)
![[Image: l.png]](https://rrcbangalore.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/l.png)
