Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 262
» Latest member: aasonlittle2854
» Forum threads: 6,305
» Forum posts: 11,803

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 314 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 311 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google

Latest Threads
Archbishop Viganò: On the...
Forum: Archbishop Viganò
Last Post: Stone
1 hour ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 16
Canadian church goes up i...
Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
Last Post: Stone
Today, 06:48 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 44
Please Pray for Bishop Ti...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:33 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 322
Livestream: Twentieth Sun...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:28 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 80
Livestream: First Saturda...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:26 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 86
Livestream: Feast of St. ...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:23 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 77
Thursday Night Holy Hour ...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
10-02-2024, 08:28 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 326
October 2nd – The Holy Gu...
Forum: October
Last Post: Stone
10-02-2024, 06:37 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 3,026
LFSPN - 'The Avignon Papa...
Forum: LFSPN
Last Post: Stone
10-02-2024, 06:16 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 159
Fr. Ruiz: Recommended art...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
10-01-2024, 04:31 AM
» Replies: 70
» Views: 109,166

 
  Fr. Hewko: 2014 Open Letter to SSPX Priests - Unfurl the Catholic Banner
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:24 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko - No Replies



Fr. David Hewko - Unfurl the Catholic Banner! Open Letter to SSPX Priests September 25th, 2014

Two years ago, the Doctrinal Declaration (April 15, 2012) which compromised on major points of DOCTRINE and signed by Bishop Fellay was sent to Rome with the hopes of an agreement. As of Bishop Fellay's meeting on September 21, 2014 (as reported by Della Sala Stampa of the Vatican Press) it is glaringly evident that the "full reconciliation" or agreement is decidedly established, the only question is when.

Fr. Valan Raja Kumar, SSPX-MC, put it simply: "The SSPX died two years ago (2012); now (2014) they are discussing the burial place and time." Catholic Tradition is tottering to its fall! The betrayal of the SSPX Superiors to Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and King, has been consummated. The evidence is clear. It is an established fact. Dress it up in terms of "prudence," "practical negotiations," "unilateral recognition of tolerance," etc., the fact is obvious to all who have eyes to see, the old SSPX is essentially over.

As an appeal to all the priests of the Society of St. Pius X and all the faithful as well, have the resounding words of Archbishop Lefebvre been forgotten so soon? Has the combat for Catholic Tradition crumbled to the new version of "Trad-Ecumenism" with the liberal Catholic positions such as St. Peter's, Ecclesia Dei, Una Voce, etc., etc.? Have the SSPX priests agreed to trade in their boxing gloves for ballerina slippers; traded the "sword of the spirit" for the "fables" of Liberal Catholicism; the defense of the true Christ the King for "religious freedom within the Conciliar Church"? (cf. 1st Condition for Agreement with Rome, 2012).

Whatever happened to the stand of Abp. Lefebvre? "It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I am hearing the voices of all these Popes--since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII--telling us: 'Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our preaching, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from the earth? Please, please continue to keep this treasure which we have given you! Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the [Catholic] Church! Continue the [Catholic] Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we [popes] condemned in the past the present authorities have embraced and are professing! How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Modernism, Sillonism.'

"All the errors which we [popes] have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the [Conciliar] Church. Is this possible? Unless you do something to continue this Tradition of the Church which we [popes] have given you, all of it shall disappear. Souls will be lost!" (Abp. Lefebvre, Consecration Sermon, June 30, 1988).

Indeed, all of Catholic Tradition will be "swamped" and "come to naught" (Abp. Lefebvre) when Tradition puts itself under these Modernist authorities.

How long will the watch dogs (i.e. priests) be silent while the SSPX Superiors submit Our Lord's flock to the wolves? Obedience to such a cooperation is a grave sin! Now is the last hour to escape this trap and turn from the Conciliar Church's snare. Unfurl the Catholic banner and proclaim the Truth against this apostate age!

"The Truth needs no disguise," said St. Pius X, "our flag must be unfurled; only by being straightforward and open can we do a little good, resisted no doubt by our enemies, but respected by them." (St. Pius X, October 20, 1912 Letter to Fr. Ciceri).

Let us hold high the great Declaration of 1974 that doesn't pretend to excuse Vatican II or "accept 95% of it," or "simply wish its correction." NO! NO! NO! "Even if all its acts are not formally heretical," said the Archbishop about the Council, "it comes from heresy and results in heresy!" (cf. 1974 Declaration).

"This fight between the Church and the Liberals and Modernism is the fight over Vatican II. It is as simple as that! and the consequences are far reaching. "The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake are not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism." (Abp. Lefebvre, Econe Address, Sept. 6, 1990, Seven months before his death).

Let us SSPX priests stand by the clear words of Abp. Lefebvre which resound like a trumpet over the battlefield of doctrine: "The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform!" (Abp. Lefebvre, 1974 Declaration). And how close should we get to Modern Rome? "It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from the Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith!" (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13).

This position has been abandoned by Bp. Fellay and all those now following the path of Operation Suicide. They no longer heed the urgent warning: "It is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar Bishops and Modernist Rome! It is the greatest danger threatening our people!" (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter, July-August 1989). [cf. See 5th Condition]. In the June 2014 Letter of Dom Tomas Aquinas, OSB, he repeats Abp. Lefebvre's emphasis that the heart of the fight of Catholic Tradition is not firstly the Mass, but Christ's Kingship!

"It is this point, where our opposition lies and the reason why there is no possibility of an agreement. The question is not so much about the Mass, because the Mass is just one consequence of the fact that they wanted to get closer to Protestantism, and thus changing the worship, Sacraments, Catechism, etc. "The real, fundamental opposition is against the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ! 'Oportet Illum regnare!' St. Paul tells us Our Lord came to reign. They [Modernist Rome] say 'No!' We say: 'Yes!' with all its consequences!" (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 70, 1993).

Dom Bruno, OSB explains the history of the fall and compromise of the Benedictine Monastery of Le Barroux (cf. The Recusant, issue #19, August 2014) while a handful of priests thought to stay and "fight from within." These priests and monks opposed the Liberal direction towards an agreement with Modernist Rome and vowed they would never say the New Mass. Eventually, they did because of the pressure, "unity" placed above the Truth, "personalities" of superiors put above unchanging principles, and they all fell to the new Liberalism and New Mass!

"That was what Fr. De Blignieres did too. He has changed completely. He who had written an entire volume condemning Religious Liberty, he now writes in favor of Religious Liberty! That's not being serious. One cannot rely anymore on men like that, who have understood nothing of the doctrinal question." (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 79, 1991).

Finally, please read the recent Letter of Dom Rafael, OSB dated September 15, 2014. In it, he quotes Bp. De Castro Mayer's insistence that the virtue of Faith, being the foundation of all supernatural life, has to be uncompromising. Any tolerance for error opens the door to all error and heresy! He also quotes the great Cardinal Pie of Poitiers saying: "Battles are won or lost at the DOCTRINAL LEVEL. The error of the French Catholics was to wait and see what the consequences of the French Revolution would be, before reacting, before fighting back against these errors."

So now, it is criminal to wait until the practical agreement between the SSPX and the Conciliar Church is "fully reconciled" before rising up against this toleration of false doctrines. It is putting the practical agreement above Christ the King, above His Divinity, above His Honor, His Doctrine, His Catholic Church! This is the heart of the whole crisis: Our Lord Jesus Christ is GOD. Christ is KING. "Every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God: and this is Antichrist." (I Jn. 4:3). Vatican II dissolves the Divinity and Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ in its very documents!

Therefore, Vatican II is of the spirit of the Antichrist. Now, --the Doctrinal Declaration (April 15, 2012). --the General Chapter Statement (July 14, 2012). --the Six Conditions for the Agreement (July 17, 2012). --the Letter of Bp. Fellay and 2 Assistants to the 3 Bishops (April 14, 2012). --the CNS Interview (May 11, 2012). --the DICI Interview (June 8, 2012). --the La Liberte Interview (May 11, 2001). --the Meeting with Cardinal Muller (September 21, 2014). --the expulsion of Bp. Williamson and numerous priests, the silences and punitive transfers since 2012. All the above proves that the SSPX leaders are now willing to accept Vatican II "in the light of Tradition," the New Mass as "legitimately promulgated," the heresy of Religious Liberty of the Council as "limited, very limited" and "reconcilable with the Magisterium," the New Code, the New Profession of Faith (1989), all of which constitute the "30 pieces of silver" for the Agreement with Modernist Rome.

Agreement or no agreement, these concessions dissolve Our Lord Jesus Christ. The "30 pieces" was paid and never rejected. Only one option remains for any Traditional Catholic priest: It is to openly oppose this Modernism and Operation Suicide of reconciliation with the Conciliar Church. Finally, we have the model before us, and how we should act: "If my work is of God, He will guard it and use it for the good of His Church. Our Lord has promised us, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. "This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this. At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me: 'What have you done with your episcopate? What have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?' I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words: 'You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them." (Abp. Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 163).

O Immaculate Heart of Mary, Crusher of all heresies, pray for us!

+ + +

Fr. Hewko's above letter may be found in The Recusant, Issue 21 (October 2014).

Print this item

  Fr. Hewko: 2012 Open Letter to Bishop Fellay, Priests, and Faithful
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:15 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko - No Replies

OPEN LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY BISHOP FELLAY,
SOCIETY PRIESTS, RELIGIOUS AND FAITHFUL

November 8, 2012
Feast of the 4 Holy Crowned Martyrs

When Catholics during the Protestant Revolution were told: “Accept the Oath of Supremacy or death!” most Catholics took the Oath. But the Lord God was pleased to raise up an army of martyrs and a saint-pope who condemned the rising errors at the Council of Trent.

When Catholics during the French Revolution were told: “Peace at the price of a little incense to the ‘gods’ of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity!”  Although most compromised, yet God raised up thousands of martyrs and a faithful Resistance from the Vendee.  Then, a Cardinal Pie of Poitiers to combat the Revolution’s “peaceful implementations” of the Napoleonic era. Within a century, faithful Catholics rallied behind the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, who condemned Liberal Catholicism.
 
When Catholics were told: “Better Red than dead!” refusing to cooperate in what Pius XI called an “intrinsically evil” economic, political and atheistic system, many did nothing, but millions of Catholics filled the Martyrs’ bleachers in Heaven, and heroic resistance was offered on the part of bishops, priests and laity throughout Russia, Ukraine, Poland, China, Vietnam, Hungary, Spain, etc., etc.  In Hungary, the so-called “Peace Priests” were promised their Latin Mass, their churches, incense and vestments as long as they remained silent on the “touchy” issue of Communism.  Cardinal Mindzenty, one of the few not to bow down, firmly refused and was imprisoned for 14 years.

When Catholics in Mexico were obliged to conform to the anti-Catholic laws of the Freemasonic government under Calles, many only watched from afar, but there rose up the Cristero Resistance who valiantly resisted them, shouting their: “Viva Cristo Rey!” in opposition to the Federalista’s: “Viva Satanas!”

When Catholics were told: “Obey, and submit to the Vatican II Reforms!”  Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and many priests preferred to appear “disobedient” rather than betray the Faith of Tradition.  Unfortunately, most clergy and laity falsely “obeyed” and went along with the enforced directives of Vatican II.

It so tragically happens that, now, 42 years after its founding, the “life-boat” of the Society of St.Pius X is being coaxed with sweets and promises into the “harbor” of Modernist Rome filled with “sunken boats” of numerous traditional communities, once publicly opposing the errors of Vatican II.

The SSPX always resisted openly and valiantly, with the grace of God, up until July 14, 2012, when the new direction towards a practical agreement became a “determined” and “approved” endeavor. This change of principle brought about a whole new orientation in the SSPX policy toward Rome and an official departure from the uncompromising stand of Archbishop Lefebvre, expressed in the Declaration of 1974 and the Statements of 1983 and 2006. Before, it was always: “No practical agreement until there’s a doctrinal agreement;” now, it’s “practical agreement without first the doctrinal agreement.” Dare we say: “Go along to get along?  Agree to disagree?” (A small error in the principles leads to disastrous conclusions).

Archbishop Lefebvre was our holy Founder. He not only had the grace of state of a Superior General, but also the grace of state as a Founder of a religious organization, to which he sought to impart his (1) spirit; (2) his principles; and (3) his experience.  These were the fruit of many years of leadership in a wide variety of pastures. He was a theologian of high repute (cf. The testimony and praise of Canon Berto, the Archbishop’s episcopal theologian during Vatican II). He was a bishop and later, archbishop (with several bishops subject to him).  He was the papal representative for all of French-speaking Africa. He was the Superior General of the largest Missionary Religious Order in the Church.  He was a frequent visitor to the Popes in Rome.  He was on the Preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council.  He was a key member of “Coetus Internationalis Patrum” during the Council. He made many interventions during the Council  (cf. I Accuse the Council! by Archbishop Lefebvre).  He was not afraid to challenge and rebuke both the Council and the Popes of the Council afterwards. He was the man of the Church chosen by Divine Providence to launch the SSPX despite tremendous pressure from inside and outside the Church. His role of saving the Church and Priesthood was prophesied by the Virgin Mary in Ecuador, nearly 350 years ago! From such a man there is much to learn.

Fr. Ludovic Barrielle (so highly revered by the Archbishop) commented in 1982: “I am writing this to serve as a lesson for everyone.  The day that the SSPX abandons the spirit and rules of its Founder, it will be lost.  Furthermore, all our brothers who, in the future, allow themselves to judge and condemn the Founder and his principles, will show no hesitation in eventually taking away from the Society the Traditional Teaching of the Church and the Mass instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Would it not be accurate to say that Archbishop Lefebvre’s spirit, principles, and experience are summarized in the following response as well as warning, made to his sons?  When asked about reopening dialogue with Rome in 1988 (after he admitted that signing the May Protocol was a big mistake), he replied:  “We do not have the same outlook on reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death.  I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then I will put conditions.  I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue.  No more!

I will place the discussion AT THE DOCTRINAL LEVEL:  ‘Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the Popes who preceded you?  Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII?  Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings?  Do you still accept the entire anti-Modernist Oath?  Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?  If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in the light of the doctrines of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible!  It is useless!  Thus the positions will be clear.” (Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 223, Interview of Fideliter Nov-Dec 1988). [N.B. See more related quotes opposing an agreement, at the end.  They far outnumber the few expressing slight hope for some agreement, before 1988.]
   
Our dear Founder clearly saw “three surrenders” by making a merely practical agreement with Modernist Rome, regardless of the number of conditions, which are: (1) surrender to Rome’s ultimate power of veto on the major decisions of the Society; (2) surrender of the power of veto over any future elected Superior General; and (3) surrender of the power of veto over the names of candidates proposed as future bishops.  With these influential powers handed over to the enemies of Jesus Christ, “they will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Dec. 13, 1984 Address to Priests of the French District).  
And further: “That is why what can look like a concession, is in reality, merely a maneuver.”  And more: “We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome!  It is the greatest danger threatening our people!  If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order to, now, put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors!” (Archbishop Lefebvre Interview, Fideliter, July-August 1989). 

I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI]  ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions; you are working to de-Christianize society, the human person, and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!  Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends, Rome is in apostasy!  I am not speaking empty words!  That is the truth! Rome is in apostasy!  One can no longer have any confidence in these people!  They have left the Church!  They have left the Church!  They have left the Church!  It is certain! Certain! Certain!  (Marcel Lefebvre, by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p.548.  The above is an accurate translation from YouTube audio of the actual voice of Archbishop Lefebvre).

But the objection can be heard: “That’s exaggerated, Father, there’s no agreement yet, and there won’t be one under this pontificate, all is back to normal!”

Such are the words.  But why so many actions to the contrary?  Why, then, was the General Chapter Declaration of 2012 not amended to conform to all the previous SSPX Declarations? Why were the “6 Conditions” left to remain flimsy and uncorrected?  (In other words, why is the “For Sale” sign still out on the front lawn?)  Why do the expulsions, silencing, refusal of Holy Communions, threats and punishments not desist for those openly opposing a false agreement?  Why the expulsion of Bishop Williamson who openly adhered to the non-compromising line of Archbishop Lefebvre?  Why the sigh-of-relief expressed by an SSPX spokesman upon the expulsion of Bishop Williamson: “The decision will certainly facilitate the talks [with Rome]?”  (Fr. Andreas Steiner to the German News Agency DPA).

Why, upon the 50th Anniversary of “the greatest disaster in the history of the Church” (Archbishop Lefebvre) Vatican II, the overwhelming silence on the official websites (cf.SSPX.org and DICI) of our Founder’s condemnation of the errors of the Council, unless it be to avoid such “polemical hindrances” towards an agreement?  Why the recent “Ecclesia Dei” press release about negotiations still continuing?  Why such a minimum reaction, in comparison with that of Archbishop Lefebvre, to the trampling of the First Commandment at Assisi III?  Why were the ambiguous interviews of CNS, DICI and YouTube (granted, “cut and paste” but) not promptly corrected and still, as yet, not clarified? (For example: “…We see that, in the discussions, many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not from the Council, but the common understanding of it [….].  Many people understand wrongly the Council [….] the Council presents a religious freedom that is a freedom that is very, very limited.” (Bishop Fellay, CNS Interview, May 11, 2012, 1:06 until 1:23). What happened to the “I accuse the Council,” pronounced by Archbishop Lefebvre?

Your Excellency, please return to your former preaching of the “Truth in charity!” When you once openly warned the priests of Campos, Brazil not to make a practical agreement with Modernist Rome. You once traced the fall of Campos under Bishop Rifan, and a similar pattern is now engulfing our dear Society!  You once said:  “For the time being, however, things are not yet at that point (i.e. Rome’s conversion to Tradition) and to foster illusions would be deadly for the SSPX, as we can see, when we follow the turn of events in Campos.” (Bishop Fellay’s Letter to Friends and Benefactors #63, Jan. 6, 2003).

You once told us: “I think Rome’s friendliness towards us is because of its ecumenical mentality. It is certainly not because Rome is now saying to us, ‘Of course, you are right, let’s go.’ No, that’s not the way Rome thinks about us. The idea they have is another one. The idea is an ecumenical one. It is the idea of  pluricity, pluriformity!”  (Letter to Friends and Benefactors #65, Dec, 8, 2003).  This ecumenical mentality has only increased with Pope Benedict XVI (e.g. the scandals of Assisi III, visits to the Mosque, Synagogues, admittance of Anglicans without renouncing their errors, etc.).

As for Rome “changing towards Tradition,” we can recall similar conditions promised to the Le Barroux Monastery to freely preach against Modernism, and have the True Mass, but under the agreement, they collapsed to compromise, accepting the New Mass within 5 years after!  As recent as March 2012, the Good Shepherd Institute has been seriously pressured by Rome to teach Vatican II in their seminary and adopt the New Catechism. The Redemptorists in Scotland were officially put under the diocesan bishop as of August 15, 2012.  Our dear Founder explained the reason why up to nine traditional communities yielded to compromise the Faith, because “IT IS NOT THE SUBJECTS WHO FORM THE SUPERIORS, BUT THE SUPERIORS WHO FORM THE SUBJECTS.” (Archbishop Lefebvre 1989 Interview One Year After the Consecrations). (“Let him who thinks he stands,…”).

Seeing the sorrowful direction of our dear SSPX now only confirms more and more that it really is determined to enter into an agreement with the Conciliar Church without a doctrinal resolution and, as the 6 Conditions prove, willingly enter an agreement that will, by that very fact, subject the SSPX to Modernist Rome.  “We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization”  (General Chapter Statement of SSPX, July 14, 2012). It is not rumors, it is there, “in stone.”

How is it possible for a priest of the SSPX to be true to his anti-Modernist Oath and, therefore, obliged to preach against Modernism, against Rome’s being
infected with Modernism, and the insanity of making a merely practical, impossible agreement with Modernist Rome, and yet consequently, be continually silenced?

Recent events show such priests are subject to punishments by silence, punitive transfers or expulsion.  How is it possible for a priest to preach the Truth “in season and out of season” in such an atmosphere?

So, I desire with all my heart to maintain the anti-Modernist Oath I made before the Most Blessed Sacrament and intend to keep it, by keeping the same sense and meaning of the doctrine of the Church of all time. Furthermore, I cannot speak for other priests, but I cannot abandon the clear, unambiguous stand of our Founder, Archbishop Lefebvre (who would doubtlessly fiercely oppose this new direction since July 2012) and choose to appear “disobedient” while, in fact, truly obeying the directives of our Founder.

To our young Catholic people, “be strong, let the Word of God abide in you, and you will overcome the wicked one” (I John 2:14).  The Archbishop once said: “Some people call me ‘dissident’ and a ‘rebel,’ and if that means against the Vatican II Council and the Liberal Reforms, then yes, I am ‘dissident’ and a ‘rebel.’”   So, I humbly add, that, if, to oppose this direction towards subjecting Catholic Tradition to Modernists who do not hold the integral Catholic Faith (and thereby endangering the eternal salvation of countless souls!) then yes, following Archbishop Lefebvre, I too am “dissident” and a “rebel.”  On the contrary, the truth appears to be that the “rebellion” has been committed by SSPX members who favor an agreement and thereby rebel against the principles and tradition of the Society.  In good conscience, I cannot follow in that direction.

So, therefore, after several months of much prayer and reflection, it seems clearly the Will of God that I help in the Resistance to the dismantling of Archbishop Lefebvre’s work, by assisting the priests who want to maintain his principles.  The present address is:
16 Dogwood Road South 
Hubbardston, MA 01452 .
(Warning: Be slow to believe cyberrumors such as “this is a repetition of ‘the 9’ in 1983.”  Stay with the actual documents, letters and facts.  See especially the well-documented work, Is This Operation Suicide? by Stephen Fox).

Doubtless, I seem bold in expressing myself in this manner!  But it is with ardent love that I compose these lines, love of God’s glory, love of Jesus Christ the King, love of Mary, of the souls, of the Society of St. Pius X, of the Church, of the Holy Father, the Pope!  Just as the SSPX had always continued the Archbishop’s work, until Rome returns to Tradition; so the SSPX priests of the Resistance will continue his work, with God’s grace, “without bitterness or resentment,” until the leaders of the SSPX return to our Founder’s principles.
   
Your Excellency, I would be happy to see you when you pass by.

May your Excellency deign to accept my gratitude and the assurance of my most respectful devotion in Our Lord,

Fr. David Hewko


The greatest service we can render the Catholic Church, the Successor of Peter, the salvationof souls and our own, is to say ‘NO’ to the reformed Liberal Church because we believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son-of-God-made-Man, Who is neither liberal nor  reformable!”  
-(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Sept. 3, 1975, Letter to Friends and Benefactors #9)


It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church, for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.”   - (Archbishop Lefebvre (Spiritual Journey, p. 13)


+ + +

Rewind – Fr. David Hewko’s Open Letter to Bishop Fellay – November 8, 2012

Print this item

  Excellent Sermon For Homeschooled Boys
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:07 AM - Forum: Sermons by Date - No Replies

From the Archived Catacombs:

This is an excellent sermon, by Fr. Hewko, given to the boys on the Florida pilgrimage.

Print this item

  Fr. Hewko Statement: August 2019 - On the New Rite of Ordination
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:05 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko - No Replies

Statement from Fr. Hewko - August 1, 2019

Quote:If anyone wants to know where I stand, it is with Abp. Marcel Lefebvre. He surpassed the best theologians of his time and he, by far, surpasses all the lay theologians of the internet! That is where I stand, period! He said these New Rites of Pope Paul VI were doubtful, period! He spoke extensively on this, without necessarily falling into sedevacantism. There is an undefinable darkness about this evil which Sacred Scripture calls the "mystery of iniquity", it is, without a doubt, partly what Our Lady of Fatima spoke of in Her Third Secret that was supposed to be revealed in 1960, that is why Abp. Lefebvre said he sees the necessity to conditionally reconfirm and reordain those coming from the New Rite. There is great wisdom in his position, "Neither Modernist nor Schismatic (or sedevacantist)!"


[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...%3D160&f=1]

Print this item

  By Rejecting Christ as King, Mas has Created Hell on Earth
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 08:03 AM - Forum: Sermons by Date - Replies (1)

From the Archived Catacombs:

Thank you to Erich who posted these perceptive words in the comment section below the video:  "It seems to me that man, by rejecting Christ as King, has created hell on earth"


Right principles vs Rights of man

[11:30] Fr. Denis Fahey explains Catholic action: What is Catholic action that we Catholics are supposed to be doing especially the lay people?

While not engaging in party politics, in America we wouldn't be pushing for democrat or republican, but Catholic action aims at what?   It aims at preparing men to act as good politicians to work for the common good according to right principles.   It seeks them to prepare the consciences of citizens politically and equip them also as Christians and Catholics.   In other words Catholic action is to prepare and educate the population towards the Kingship of Jesus Christ.


[18:00 min.] Fr. Hewko: “Be reminded this Declaration of the Rights of Man was put out in 1793 and it was condemned by the Church.”

Excerpt from Fr. Fahey's book The Social Rights of Jesus Christ the King
pg. 138-140
Quote:...Him is such a horrible and mad crime as to be scarcely credible.  For He is the origin and source of all good and just as mankind could not be freed from slavery but by the sacrifice of Christ, so neither can it be preserved but by His power”. (same Enclyclical Letter, Tametsi, 1900).  When a people which has grasped the truth of the Divine Plan turns against our Lord, by leaving Him out of account and by passing over in silence the rights of the Head of the Mystical Body, it commits apostasy and initiates the most fightful disorder.  Having rejected the dependence of mankind on the Sacred Humanity of Jesus, man must necessarily put himself and his own natural life in the place of God.  Now it is precisely in this that Rationalism consists and this is exactly what we find in the “Declaration of the Right of Man” of 1789.  We behold, on the one hand, social apostasy and the rejection of our Lord Jesus Christ, on the other, the substitution of man for God or the worship of humanity. (1)

The Preamble to this infamous document runs as follows: “The representatives of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of 1791 and of 1793, made explicit certain points implicitly contained in that of 1789.

...the French people met together in a national assemble, considering that the ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt of the rights of man are the sole causes of public misfortunes and of the corruption of governments, have decided to set forth, in a solemn Delcaration, the natural, inalienable and sacred rights of man, so that this Declaration, being ever before the eyes of all the membrs of society, may unceasingly remind them of their rights and duties….

“Consequently, the National Assembly recognises and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supremem Being, the following rights of man and the citizen.

Art. I.  Men are born free and equal in rights and continue so. Social distinction can be founded only on public utility….

Art III. The source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No society,no individual, can exercise an authority which does not emanate from it expressly.

Art IV. Liberty is the power of doing what we will, so long as it does not injure another: The only limits of each man’s natural rights are such as secure the same rights to others; these limits are determinable only by law.

Art. VI. The law is the Expression of the general will……..

Art X. No one can be molested for his opinion, even for his religious opinions, provided their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by law.

Art XI.  The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man; therefore every citizen is allowed freedom of speech, of writing, and of printing, but will have to answer for any abuse of that liberty in cases determined by law.”

Only a few of the articles of the Declaration are quoted.  They will, however, be quite sufficient to illustrate the Rousseauist-Masonic doctrine of the immanent divinity of man which underlies the whole document.  Of course there is a certain vagueness about some of the formulae.  This is a well-known Masonic trick to deceive the unwary

For example, the uninitiated interpret the first article as follows: Men are free, that is, they can do what the law does not forbid:  they may even profess the religion which pleases the; men are equal in rights, that is, all are equal before the law, all are eligible for public offices, all are subject to public duties, to taxes, etc.  But the real meaning, the one behind which is the whole driving force of masonry and secret societies generally, is that each man in the sate of nature, to which we must return to be happy, is free and independent like God.   All are equally God. Man is born free; that is, unrestrained license is an absolute exigency of human nature; any kind of submission to any man is contrary to nature. As all are equally God, nature demands tht the strictest equality should be realised amongst men, and that, therefore, everyone should have a vote. Accordingly, in a State correctly formed, an absolute social equality should counterbalance natural inequalities. Needless to say the logical consequence is Communism. For if all men are equal, why are some rich and others poor? The right of private property is the greatest cause of social inequality, so it must be abolished.Other distinctions must disappear as well. If all men are equal, the classifications of superiors and inferiors, parents and children, husbands and wives must be eliminated.

Print this item

  Pictures of Fr. Hewko's Ordination
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 07:54 AM - Forum: Rev. Father David Hewko - Replies (4)

Pictures of Fr. Hewko's Ordination gratefully 'borrowed' from HERE:

Rev. Fr. David Hewko was ordained on April 21, 1992 in St. Mary’s, Kansas, USA by Bishop Richard Williamson.
(Society St. Pius X, founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre)

Deo Gratias!


[Image: snip-Fr-H-pic-ordination.jpg]

[Image: 20200205_075653-400x284.jpg]

[Image: 20200205_075350-1-400x284.jpg]

[Image: 20200205_074519-e1581793441313-400x284.jpg]

[Image: 20200205_080054-400x284.jpg]

Print this item

  COVID - 19 Resource Sites
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 07:43 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular] - Replies (1)

[Image: IMG_20200608_221108_378.webp]

Gulag 2020
www.gulag2020.com
"For up to date information from various sources regarding the coronavirus 'pandemic,' and the NWO. Run by a traditional Catholic layman.
Please share far and wide, and contribute to ending the ignorance!"
The Set Up of the Pandemic 2
The Who and the Why
Legal Challenges, Petitions and Campaigns
Civil Unrest
Surveillance and Police State
Vaccinations
The Unnecessary Lockdown
The Consequences of Lockdown
Face Masks
Covid-19: The Facts



LifeSiteNews on their affliated LifeFacts website
Overview
Unmasking Masks
Vaccine
Contact Tracing
COVID-19: Engineered?
HCQ
Churches & COVID

Print this item

  COVID - 19 Resource Sites
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 07:43 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Spiritual] - No Replies

[Image: IMG_20200608_221108_378.webp]

Gulag 2020
www.gulag2020.com
"For up to date information from various sources regarding the coronavirus 'pandemic,' and the NWO. Run by a traditional Catholic layman.
Please share far and wide, and contribute to ending the ignorance!"
The Set Up of the Pandemic 2
The Who and the Why
Legal Challenges, Petitions and Campaigns
Civil Unrest
Surveillance and Police State
Vaccinations
The Unnecessary Lockdown
The Consequences of Lockdown
Face Masks
Covid-19: The Facts



LifeSiteNews on their affliated LifeFacts website
Overview
Unmasking Masks
Vaccine
Contact Tracing
COVID-19: Engineered?
HCQ
Churches & COVID

Print this item

  Doctor on CNN: Don’t be ‘alarmed’ if elderly die after receiving COVID vaccine
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 07:30 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines - No Replies

Doctor on CNN: Don’t be ‘alarmed’ if elderly die after receiving COVID vaccine
Dr. Kelly Moore said that people 'should not be unnecessarily alarmed if there are reports, once we start vaccinating, of someone or multiple people dying within a day or two of their vaccination who are residents of a long-term care facility.'

[Image: shutterstock_1298134576_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]
 

December 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A doctor told CNN that nobody should be “surprised” to see reports of “multiple people dying” at long-term care facilities a day or two after having received the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Kelly Moore, associate director of the Immunization Action Coalition, told CNN last week that the COVID-19 vaccines have not been tested on the “frail elderly.”

"Since they haven't been studied in people in those populations, we don't know how well the vaccine will work for them. We know that most vaccines don't work nearly as well in a frail elderly person as they would in someone who is fit and vigorous, even if they happen to be the same age," said Moore.

Moore said that Americans need to be prepared for reports about the elderly dying “a day or two” after receiving the vaccine jab, adding that such deaths are a “normal occurrence” that may have nothing to do with the vaccine since such people “die frequently.”

"We would not at all be surprised to see, coincidentally, vaccination happening and then having someone pass away a short time after they receive a vaccine, not because it has anything to do with the vaccination but just because that's the place where people at the end of their lives reside," Moore said.

"One of the things we want to make sure people understand is that they should not be unnecessarily alarmed if there are reports, once we start vaccinating, of someone or multiple people dying within a day or two of their vaccination who are residents of a long-term care facility. That would be something we would expect, as a normal occurrence, because people die frequently in nursing homes,” Moore added.

Last week, a panel of doctors advising the U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) voted to recommend that elderly staff of long-term care facilities be among the first in line to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Out of the panel of 14 advisers, however, one doctor voted against the recommendation.

Vanderbilt University researcher Helen Keipp Talbot, who studies vaccines in older adults, told the committee ahead of the Dec. 1 vote that data is lacking to support the use of a COVID vaccine for the elderly in long-term care residents.

“I have spent my career studying vaccines in older adults. We have traditionally tried a vaccine in a young, healthy population and then hoped it worked in our frail, older adults. And so we enter this realm of ‘We hope it works and we hope it’s safe.’ And that concerns me on many levels,” Moore said.

Paul Joseph Watson commented at Summit News that there appears to be a double standard when it comes to attributing causes of death to the elderly during COVID times.
Quote:“While deaths in care homes of people who take the vaccine are described as normal and nothing to do with the vaccine, some would suggest that you could make the exact same argument about deaths of those with multiple comorbidities in care homes that were put down to COVID. Many have and have been shouted down for doing so,” he said.

Last week, the German federal government began preparing citizens for deaths that will happen after people are injected with a COVID-19 vaccine, but not necessarily caused by it.

Lothar H. Wieler, president of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, the national public health institute in Germany, said Dec. 3 that with an average of 2,500 people dying each day in Germany, it is probable that some will die after having taken the vaccine.
Quote:“That means there is the possibility — and it is statistically very probable — that people, in connection with the vaccination, will die. Then it will be extremely important to determine whether the cause of death was the vaccine or another pre-existing disease,” he said. “This is precisely why we need vaccination centers with centralized data collection for tracking side effects,” he added.

Children’s Health Defense is urging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to “take a cautious approach in approving COVID-19 vaccines that have been developed at ‘warp speed,’” noting that the potential long-term pathologic effects of taking such vaccines remain unknown. 

“Unfortunately, conditions such as allergies, autoimmune diseases, neurodevelopmental problems, and cancers are unlikely to be detectable within the short clinical trial follow-up windows,” Robert Kennedy Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, stated in a Dec. 4 open letter to Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.


LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.

[Emphasis mine.]

Print this item

  Canada announces digital immunity passports
Posted by: Stone - 12-11-2020, 07:22 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular] - No Replies

Canada announces digital immunity passports

ReclaimtheNet | December 10, 2020

Just months ago, such an idea was classed as a conspiracy theory.

The Canadian government will introduce digital immunity passports, the Health Minister of Ontario has confirmed. The idea of immunity passports is facing pushback not only from vaccine skeptics but also people who would like the government to respect their privacy and civil liberties.

In a recent press briefing, Christine Elliot, the health minister of Ontario was asked how the government planned to convince people to take the vaccines. She warned that those who refuse to take the vaccine will face certain restrictions.

While a vaccine will not be mandatory, citizens who won’t hold the passport will be denied access to some aspects of public life. “That’s their choice, this is not going to be a mandatory campaign. It will be voluntary,” Elliot said.

She added that, “There may be some restrictions that may be placed on people that don’t have vaccines for travel purposes, to be able to go out to theatres and other places.”

Elliot was also asked if the government would introduce immunity passports, or some other proof of vaccination. She said:
Quote:“Yes, because that’s going to be really important for people to have for travel purposes, perhaps for work purposes, for going to theatres or cinemas or any other places where people will be in closer physical contact.”

Dr. David Williams, the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health also said that a coronavirus vaccination would be necessary for people to be able to move around.
Quote:“What we can do is to say sometimes for access, or ease, in getting into certain settings, if you don’t have vaccination then you’re not allowed into that setting without other protection materials,” he said.

After Elliot’s remarks during the press briefing, The Toronto Sun followed up by speaking to her press secretary, who made it clear that the government was considering multiple options for the “tracking and surveillance” of COVID-19 vaccination status.

This includes exploring developing tech-based solutions while also providing for alternative options to ensure equitable access to any potential ‘immunity passport,’” Alexandra Hilkene, Elliot’s press secretary, said.

According to Brian Lilley, a reporter for The Toronto Sun, the idea of immunity passports will be met with criticism.

“That phrase will set off alarm bells and it should, not just for anti-vaxxers, but for anyone who is concerned about Charter rights and governments running roughshod over them.”

Canada is not the only government or institution that has suggested immunity passports are the way forward for life to get back to the way it was before the pandemic. Government officials and airlines in the US, the UK, and other countries around the globe are also considering the so-called immunity passports or COVID passports.

As the former director of the US CDC noted in an article on the Wall Street Journal published last week, governments will push for the immunity passports despite the legal and ethical concerns.

[Emphasis mine.]

Print this item

  Prophecies on Antichrist
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-11-2020, 12:57 AM - Forum: Catholic Prophecy - Replies (6)

St. Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419)

"In the days of peace that are to come after the desolation of revolutions and wars, before the end of the world Christians will become so lax in their religion that they will refuse the sacrament of Confirmation, saying that it is unnecessary. And when the false prophet, the precursor of Antichrist, comes, all who are not confirmed will apostatize, while those who are confirmed will stand fast in their faith, and only a few will renounce Christ.”

http://www.thirdorderofsaintdominic.org/...nings.html

Print this item

  Anne Catherine Emmerich's Prophecies
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-11-2020, 12:52 AM - Forum: Catholic Prophecy - Replies (1)

"I saw the fatal consequences of this counterfeit church; I saw it increase; I saw heretics of all kinds flocking to the city. I saw the ever-increasing tepidity of the clergy, the circle of darkness ever widening. And now the vision became more extended. I saw in all places Catholics oppressed, annoyed, restricted, and deprived of liberty, churches were closed and great misery prevailed everywhere with war and bloodshed. I saw rude ignorant people offering violent resistance. But this state of things lasted not long."


(From the Life and Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich: Vol. 2: Visions of May 13, 1820)

Print this item

  January 10th - St. William, Archbishop of Bourges
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-11-2020, 12:30 AM - Forum: January - No Replies

[Image: cWCHK86DhGVBYFxQNNKhw8jPjPTbvguEm7hPGTic...moUq2eu2Ww]
Saint William
Archbishop of Bourges
(† 1209)

William Berruyer, of the illustrious family of the ancient Counts of Nevers, was educated by Peter the Hermit, Archdeacon of Soissons, his maternal uncle. From his early childhood Saint William learned to despise the folly and emptiness of the world, to abhor its pleasures, and to tremble at its dangers. His only delight was in exercises of piety and his studies, with which he employed his whole time in an untiring application.

Saint William was made a canon, an ecclesiastic attached to a cathedral church, first at Soissons and afterwards in Paris; but he soon resolved to abandon the world and retired into the solitude of Grandmont, where he lived with great regularity in that austere Order. Finally he joined the Cistercians, flourishing with sanctity at the time, and later was chosen to be Prior of the Abbey of Pontigny, then made Abbot of Challis.

On the death of Henri de Sully, Archbishop of Bourges, William was chosen to succeed him. The announcement of this new dignity which had fallen on him overwhelmed him with grief, and he would not have accepted the office had not the Pope and his own Cistercian General, the Abbot of Citeaux, commanded him to do so. His first care in his new position was to conform his life to the most perfect rules of sanctity. He redoubled all his austerities, saying it was incumbent on him now to do penance for others as well as for himself. He always wore a hair shirt under his religious habit, and never added to his clothing in winter or diminished it in summer; he never ate any flesh meat, though he had it at his table for guests.

When he drew near his end, he was, at his request, laid on ashes in his hair cloth, and in this posture expired on the 10th of January, 1209. While this holy bishop was laid out for veneration, an infirm young boy who wanted to venerate him, but had to be carried to the church by his mother, was completely cured of his infirmities, and ran about proclaiming the miracle. The stone of his tomb in the Cathedral Church of Bourges cured mortal wounds and illnesses and delivered possessed persons; the deaf and dumb, the blind, the mentally ill became sound. So many miracles occurred there that the monks could not record them all, and he was canonized nine years after his death, in 1218, by Pope Honorius III.

Print this item

  January 9th - St. Julian and St. Basilissa
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-11-2020, 12:28 AM - Forum: January - No Replies

[Image: Saint-Julian-and-Saint-Basilissa-Martyr.jpg]
Saint Julian and Saint Basilissa
Martyr
(† 313)

Saint Julian and Saint Basilissa, though married, lived by mutual consent in perpetual chastity. They sanctified themselves by the most perfect exercises of an ascetic life, and employed their revenues in relieving the poor and the sick. For this purpose they converted their house into a kind of hospital, in which they sheltered up to a thousand poor people. Basilissa attended those of her sex in separate lodgings, and Julian, who for his charity is known as the Hospitaler, cared for the men.

Egypt, where they lived, was in those days blessed with persons who, either in the cities or in the deserts, devoted themselves to the most perfect exercises of charity, penance, and mortification. Conversions were numerous, and persecutions by furious pagans followed as the numbers of Christians increased. Basilissa, after having survived seven of those, died in peace, foretelling to her husband that he would die a martyr. Julian lived afterwards for a number of years, but eventually received the crown of a glorious martyrdom in 313. His interrogation and his tortures were accompanied by astonishing prodigies and numerous conversions.

With him died thirty-one other persons, including a priest named Anthony, a new Christian named Anastasius, Celsus, the seven-year-old son of the judge who sentenced Julian, Marcianilla, the mother of Celsus, who when she came to visit her son was won over to the faith, and many other Christians. Spared by fire and wild beasts, Saint Julian finally was decapitated. His tomb became illustrious by many great miracles, including the cure of ten lepers on the same day.

Many churches and hospitals, in both the East and in the West, bear the name of one or another of these martyrs. Four churches at Rome and three in Paris are dedicated to Saint Julian.

Print this item

  January 8th - St. Apollinaris the Apologist
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-11-2020, 12:27 AM - Forum: January - No Replies

[Image: saint-apollinaris-the-apologist-bishop.jpg]
Saint Apollinaris the Apologist
Bishop
(† 180)

Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, was one of the most illustrious prelates of the second age of the Church, which began with the edict of Constantine in 313, making Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire. Notwithstanding the great eulogies bestowed on Saint Apollinaris by Eusebius, Saint Jerome, Theodoret, and others, little is known of his acts, and his writings, which then were held in great esteem, are apparently all lost. He had written many excellent treatises against the heretics and pointed out, as Saint Jerome testifies, the philosophical sect from which each heresy derived its errors.

Nothing rendered his name so illustrious, however, as the noble apology for the Christian religion which he addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius about the year 175. This was spoken soon after the miraculous victory the emperor obtained over enemies, through the prayers of the Christians. Saint Apollinaris reminded Marcus Aurelius of the benefit he had received from God through the prayers of his Christian subjects, and implored protection for them against the persecutions of the pagans. Marcus Aurelius published an edict in which he forbade anyone, under pain of death, to accuse a Christian on account of his religion; but, by a strange inconsistency, he did not have the courage to abolish the laws then in force against the Christians. As a consequence, many of them continued to suffer martyrdom, though their accusers were also put to death.

The exact date of Saint Apollinaris' death is not known; the Roman Martyrology mentions him on the 8th of January.

Print this item