| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 136 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 133 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Yandex
|
| Latest Threads |
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
1 hour ago
» Replies: 15
» Views: 1,099
|
Interview with the Editor...
Forum: The Recusant
Last Post: Stone
11 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 72
|
Purgatory Explained by th...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 09:03 AM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 3,372
|
Last Sunday after Penteco...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:57 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 11,624
|
Livestream: Twenty-sevent...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:30 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 74
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:27 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 95
|
The Catholic Trumpet: Whe...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 07:06 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 78
|
Bishop appointed by Commu...
Forum: Socialism & Communism
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:57 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 87
|
Dr. Marian Horvat: The Tw...
Forum: General Commentary
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:52 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 102
|
German [District] Superio...
Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:48 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 119
|
|
|
| The Vendée |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-18-2020, 02:52 PM - Forum: Uncompromising Fighters for the Faith
- Replies (2)
|
 |
Excerpt from The Book of Golden Deeds:
THE VENDEANS 1793
While the greater part of France had been falling into habits of self−indulgence, and from thence into infidelity and revolution, there was one district where the people had not forgotten to fear God and honor the King.
This was in the tract surrounding the Loire, the south of which is now called La Vendee, and was then termed the Bocage, or the Woodland. It is full of low hills and narrow valleys, divided into small fields, enclosed by high thick hedgerows; so that when viewed from the top of one of the hills, the whole country appears perfectly green, excepting near harvest−time, when small patches of golden corn catch the eye, or where here and there a church tower peeps above the trees, in the midst of the flat red−tiled roofs of the surrounding village. The roads are deep lanes, often in the winter beds of streams, and in the summer completely roofed by the thick foliage of the trees, whose branches meet overhead.
The gentry of La Vendee, instead of idling their time at Paris, lived on their own estates in kindly intercourse with their neighbours, and constantly helping and befriending their tenants, visiting them at their farms, talking over their crops and cattle, giving them advice, and inviting them on holidays to dance in the courts of their castles, and themselves joining in their sports. The peasants were a hardworking, sober, and pious people, devoutly attending their churches, reverencing their clergy, and, as well they might, loving and honoring their good landlords.
But as the Revolution began to make its deadly progress at Paris, a gloom spread over this happy country. The Paris mob, who could not bear to see anyone higher in station than themselves, thirsted for noble blood, and the gentry were driven from France, or else imprisoned and put to death. An oath contrary to the laws of their Church was required of the clergy, those who refused it were thrust out of their parishes, and others placed in their room; and throughout France all the youths of a certain age were forced to draw lots to decide who should serve in the Republican army.
This conscription filled up the measure. The Vendeans had grieved over the flight of their landlords, they had sheltered and hidden their priests, and heard their ministrations in secret; but when their young men were to be carried way from them, and made the defenders and instruments of those who were murdering their King, overthrowing their Church, and ruining their country, they could endure it no longer, but in the spring of 1793, soon after the execution of Louis XVI., a rising took place in Anjou, at the village of St. Florent, headed by a peddler named Cathelineau, and they drove back the Blues, as they called the revolutionary soldiers, who had come to enforce the conscription. They begged Monsieur de Bonchamp, a gentleman in the neighborhood, to take the command; and, willing to devote himself to the cause of his King, he complied, saying, as he did so, 'We must not aspire to earthly rewards; such would be beneath the purity of our motives, the holiness of our cause. We must not even aspire to glory, for a civil war affords none. We shall see our castles fall, we shall be proscribed, slandered, stripped of our possessions, perhaps put to death; but let us thank God for giving us strength to do our duty to the end.'
The next person on whom the peasants cast their eyes possessed as true and strong a heart, though he was too young to count the cost of loyalty with the same calm spirit of self−devotion. The Marquis de la Rochejacquelein, one of the most excellent of the nobles of Poitou, had already emigrated with his wife and all his family, excepting Henri, the eldest son, who, though but eighteen years of age, had been placed in the dangerous post of an officer in the Royal Guards. When Louis XVI. had been obliged to dismiss these brave men, he had obtained a promise from each officer that he would not leave France, but wait for some chance of delivering that unhappy country. Henri had therefore remained at Paris, until after the 10th of August, 1792, when the massacre at the Tuileries took place, and the imprisonment of the royal family commenced; and then every gentleman being in danger in the city, he had come to his father's deserted castle of Durballiere in Poitou. He was nearly twenty, tall and slender, with fair hair, an oval face, and blue eyes, very gentle, although full of animation. He was active and dexterous in all manly sports, especially shooting and riding; he was a man of few words; and his manners were so shy, modest, and retiring, that his friends used to say he was more like an Englishman than a Frenchman.
Hearing that he was alone at Durballière, and knowing that as an officer in the Guards, and also as being of the age liable to the conscription, he was in danger from the Revolutionists in the neighboring towns, his cousin, the Marquis de Lescure, sent to invite him to his strong castle of Clisson, which was likewise situated in the Bocage. This castle afforded a refuge to many others who were in danger to nuns driven from their convents, dispossessed clergy, and persons who dreaded to remain at their homes, but who felt reassured under the shelter of the castle, and by the character of its owner, a young man of six−and−twenty, who, though of high and unshaken loyalty, had never concerned himself with politics, but led a quiet and studious life, and was everywhere honored and respected.
The winter passed in great anxiety, and when in the spring the rising at Anjou took place, and the new government summoned all who could bear arms to assist in quelling it, a council was held among the party at Clisson on the steps to be taken. Henri, as the youngest, spoke first, saying he would rather perish than fight against the peasants; nor among the whole assembly was there one person willing to take the safer but meaner course of deserting the cause of their King and country. 'Yes,' said the Duchess de Donnissan, mother to the young wife of the Marquis de Lescure, 'I see you are all of the same opinion. Better death than dishonor. I approve your courage. It is a settled thing:' and seating herself in her armchair, she concluded, 'Well, then, we must die.'
For some little time all remained quiet at Clisson; but at length the order for the conscription arrived, and a few days before the time appointed for the lots to be drawn, a boy came to the castle bringing a note to Henri from his aunt at St. Aubin. 'Monsieur Henri,' said the boy, 'they say you are to draw for the conscription next Sunday; but may not your tenants rise against it in the meantime? Come with me, sir, the whole country is longing for you, and will obey you.'
Henri instantly promised to come, but some of the ladies would have persuaded him not to endanger himself representing, too, that if he was missing on the appointed day, M. de Lescure might be made responsible for him. The Marquis, however, silenced them, saying to his cousin, 'You are prompted by honor and duty to put yourself at the head of your tenants. Follow out your plan, I am only grieved at not being able to go with you; and certainly no fear of imprisonment will lead me to dissuade you from doing your duty.' 'Well, I will come and rescue you,' said Henri, embracing him, and his eyes glancing with a noble soldier−like expression and an eagle look.
As soon as the servants were gone to bed, he set out with a guide, with a stick in his hand and a pair of pistols in his belt; and traveling through the fields, over hedges and ditches, for fear of meeting with the Blues, arrived at St. Aubin, and from thence went on to meet M. de Bonchamp and his little army. But he found to his disappointment that they had just been defeated, and the chieftains, believing that all was lost, had dispersed their troops. He went to his own home, dispirited and grieved; but no sooner did the men of St. Aubin learn the arrival of their young lord, than they came trooping to the castle, entreating him to place himself at their head.
In the early morning, the castle court, the fields, the village, were thronged with stout hardy farmers and laborers, in grey coats, with broad flapping hats, and red woolen handkerchiefs round their necks. On their shoulders were spits, scythes, and even sticks; happy was the man who could bring an old fowling−piece, and still more rejoiced the owner of some powder, intended for blasting some neighboring quarry. All had bold true hearts, ready to suffer and to die in the cause of their Church and of their young innocent imprisoned King.
A mistrust of his own powers, a fear of ruining these brave men, crossed the mind of the youth as he looked forth upon them, and he exclaimed, 'If my father was but here, you might trust to him. Yet by my courage I will show myself worthy, and lead you. If I go forward, follow me: if I draw back, kill me; if I am slain, avenge me!' They replied with shouts of joy, and it was instantly resolved to march upon the next village, which was occupied by the rebel troops. They gained a complete victory, driving away the Blues, and taking two small pieces of cannon, and immediately joined M. de Bonchamp and Cathelineau, who, encouraged by their success, again gathered their troops and gained some further advantages.
In the meantime, the authorities had sent to Clisson and arrested M. de Lescure, his wife, her parents, and some of their guests, who were conducted to Bressuire, the nearest town, and there closely guarded. There was great danger that the Republicans would revenge their losses upon them, but the calm dignified deportment of M. de Lescure obliged them to respect him so much that no injury was offered to him. At last came the joyful news that the Royalist army was approaching. The Republican soldiers immediately quitted the town, and the inhabitants all came to ask the protection of the prisoners, desiring to send their goods to Clisson for security, and thinking themselves guarded by the presence of M. and Madame de Lescure.
M. de Lescure and his cousin Bernard de Marigny mounted their horses and rode out to meet their friends. In a quarter of an hour afterwards, Madame de Lescure heard the shouts 'Long live the King!' and the next minute, Henri de la Rochejacquelein hurried into the room, crying, 'I have saved you.' The peasants marched in to the number of 20,000, and spread themselves through the town, but in their victory they had gained no taste for blood or plunder they did not hurt a single inhabitant, nor touch anything that was not their own. Madame de Lescure heard some of them wishing for tobacco, and asked if there was none in the town. 'Oh yes, there is plenty to be sold, but we have no money;' and they were very thankful to her for giving the small sum they required. Monsieur de Donnissan saw two men disputing in the street, and one drew his sword, when he interfered, saying, 'Our Lord prayed for His murderers, and would one soldier of the Catholic army kill another?' The two instantly embraced.
Three times a day these peasant warriors knelt at their prayers, in the churches if they were near them, if not, in the open field, and seldom have ever been equaled the piety, the humility, the self−devotion alike of chiefs and of followers. The frightful cruelties committed by the enemy were returned by mercy; though such of them as fell into the hands of the Republicans were shot without pity, yet their prisoners were instantly set at liberty after being made to promise not to serve against them again, and having their hair shaved off in order that they might be recognized.
Whenever an enterprise was resolved on, the curates gave notice to their parishioners that the leaders would be at such a place at such a time, upon which they crowded to the spot, and assembled around the white standard of France with such weapons as they could muster.
The clergy then heard them confess their sins, gave them absolution, and blessed them; then, while they set forward, returned to the churches where their wives and children were praying for their success. They did not fight like regular soldiers, but, creeping through the hedgerows and coppices, burst unexpectedly upon the Blues, who, entangled in the hollow lanes, ignorant of the country, and amazed by the suddenness of the attack, had little power to resist. The chieftains were always foremost in danger; above all the eager young Henri, with his eye on the white standard, and on the blue sky, and his hand making the sign of the cross without which he never charged the enemy, dashed on first, fearless of peril, regardless of his life, thinking only of his duty to his king and the protection of his followers.
It was calmness and resignation which chiefly distinguished M. de Lescure, the Saint of Poitou, as the peasants called him from his great piety, his even temper, and the kindness and the wonderful mercifulness of his disposition. Though constantly at the head of his troops, leading them into the most dangerous places, and never sparing himself, not one man was slain by his hand, nor did he even permit a prisoner to receive the least injury in his presence. When one of the Republicans once presented his musket close to his breast, he quietly put it aside with his hand, and only said, 'Take away the prisoner'. His calmness was indeed well founded, and his trust never failed. Once when the little army had received a considerable check, and his cousin M. de Marigny was in despair, and throwing his pistols on the table, exclaimed, 'I fight no longer', he took him by the arm, led him to the window, an pointing to a troop of peasants kneeling at their evening prayers, he said, 'See there a pledge of our hopes, and doubt no longer that we shall conquer in our turn.'
Their greatest victory was at Saumur, owing chiefly to the gallantry of Henri, who threw his hat into the midst of the enemy, shouting to his followers, 'Who will go and fetch it for me?' and rushing forward, drove all before him, and made his way into the town on one side, while M. de Lescure, together with Stofflet, a game−keeper, another of the chiefs, made their entrance on the other side. M. de Lescure was wounded in the arm, and on the sight of his blood the peasants gave back, and would have fled had not Stofflet threatened to shoot the first who turned; and in the meantime M. de Lescure, tying up his arm with a handkerchief, declared it was nothing, and led them onwards.
The city was entirely in their hands, and their thankful delight was excessive; but they only displayed it by ringing the bells, singing the Te Deum, and parading the streets. Henri was almost out of his senses with exultation; but at last he fell into a reverie, as he stood, with his arms folded, gazing on the mighty citadel which had yielded to efforts such as theirs. His friends roused him from his dream by their remarks, and he replied, 'I am reflecting on our success, and am confounded'.
They now resolved to elect a general−in−chief, and M. de Lescure was the first to propose Cathelineau, the peddler, who had first come forward in the cause. It was a wondrous thing when the nobles, the gentry, and experienced officers who had served in the regular army, all willingly placed themselves under the command of the simple untrained peasant, without a thought of selfishness or of jealousy. Nor did Cathelineau himself show any trace of pride, or lose his complete humility of mind or manner; but by each word and deed he fully proved how wise had been their judgment, and well earned the title given him by the peasants of the 'Saint of Anjou'.
It was now that their hopes were highest; they were more numerous and better armed than they had ever been before, and they even talked of a march to Paris to 'fetch their little king, and have him crowned at Chollet', the chief town of La Vendee. But martyrdom, the highest glory to be obtained on this earth, was already shedding its brightness round these devoted men who were counted worthy to suffer, and it was in a higher and purer world that they were to meet their royal child.
Cathelineau turned towards Nantes, leaving Henri de la Rochejaquelein, to his great vexation, to defend Saumur with a party of peasants. But he found it impossible to prevent these poor men from returning to their homes; they did not understand the importance of garrison duty, and gradually departed, leaving their commander alone with a few officers, with whom he used to go through the town at night, shouting out, 'Long live the king!' at the places where there ought to have been sentinels. At last, when his followers were reduced to eight, he left the town, and, rejoicing to be once more in the open field, overtook his friends at Angers, where they had just rescued a great number of clergy who had been imprisoned there, and daily threatened with death. 'Do not thank us,' said the peasants to the liberated priests; 'it is for you that we fight. If we had not saved you, we should not have ventured to return home. Since you are freed, we see plainly that the good God is on our side.'
But the tide was now about to turn. The Government in Paris sent a far stronger force into the Bocage, and desolated it in a cruel manner. Clisson was burnt to the ground with the very fireworks which had been prepared for the christening of its master's eldest child, and which had not been used because of the sorrowful days when she was born. M. de Lescure had long expected its destruction, but had not chosen to remove the furniture, lest he should discourage the peasants. His family were with the army, where alone there was now any safety for the weak and helpless. At Nantes the attack was unsuccessful, and Cathelineau himself received a wound of which he died in a few days, rejoicing at having been permitted to shed his blood in such a cause.
The army, of which M. d'Elbee became the leader, now returned to Poitou, and gained a great victory at Chatillon; but here many of them forgot the mercy they had usually shown, and, enraged by the sight of their burnt cottages, wasted fields, and murdered relatives, they fell upon the prisoners and began to slaughter them. M. de Lescure, coming in haste, called out to them to desist. 'No, no,' cried M. de Marigny; 'let me slay these monsters who have burnt your castle.' 'Then, Marigny,' said his cousin, 'you must fight with me. You are too cruel; you will perish by the sword.' And he saved these unhappy men for the time; but they were put to death on their way to their own army.
The cruelties of the Republicans occasioned a proclamation on the part of the Royalists that they would make reprisals; but they could never bring themselves to act upon it. When M. de Lescure took Parthenay, he said to the inhabitants, 'It is well for you that it is I who have taken your town; for, according to our proclamation, I ought to burn it; but, as you would think it an act of private revenge for the burning of Clisson, I spare you'.
Though occasional successes still maintained the hopes of the Vendeans, misfortunes and defeats now became frequent; they were unable to save their country from the devastations of the enemy, and disappointments began to thin the numbers of the soldiers. Henri, while fighting in a hollow road, was struck in the right hand by a ball, which broke his thumb in three places. He continued to direct his men, but they were at length driven back from their post. He was obliged to leave the army for some days; and though he soon appeared again at the head of the men of St. Aubin, he never recovered the use of his hand.
Shortly after, both D'Elbee and Bonchamp were desperately wounded; and M. de Lescure, while waving his followers on to attack a Republican post, received a ball in the head. The enemy pressed on the broken and defeated army with overwhelming force, and the few remaining chiefs resolved to cross the Loire and take refuge in Brittany. It was much against the opinion of M. de Lescure; but, in his feeble and suffering state, he could not make himself heard, nor could Henri's representations prevail; the peasants, in terror and dismay, were hastening across as fast as they could obtain boats to carry them. The enemy was near at hand, and Stofflet, Marigny, and the other chiefs were only deliberating whether they should not kill the prisoners whom they could not take with them, and, if set at liberty, would only add to the numbers of their pursuers. The order for their death had been given; but, before it could be executed, M. de Lescure had raised his head to exclaim, 'It is too horrible!' and M. de Bonchamp at the same moment said, almost with his last breath, 'Spare them!' The officers who stood by rushed to the generals, crying out that Bonchamp commanded that they should be pardoned. They were set at liberty; and thus the two Vendean chiefs avenged their deaths by saving five thousand of their enemies!
M. de Bonchamp expired immediately after; but M. de Lescure had still much to suffer in the long and painful passage across the river, and afterwards, while carried along the rough roads to Varades in an armchair upon two pikes, his wife and her maid supporting his feet. The Bretons received them kindly, and gave him a small room, where, the next day, he sent for the rest of the council, telling them they ought to choose a new general, since M. d'Elbee was missing. They answered that he himself alone could be commander. 'Gentlemen,' he answered: 'I am mortally wounded; and even if I am to live, which I do not expect, I shall be long unfit to serve. The army must instantly have an active chief, loved by all, known to the peasants, trusted by everyone. It is the only way of saving us. M. de la Rochejaquelein alone is known to the soldiers of all the divisions. M. de Donnissan, my father−in−law, does not belong to this part of the country, and would not be as readily followed. The choice I propose would encourage the soldiers; and I entreat you to choose M. de 1a Rochejaquelein. As to me, if I live, you know I shall not quarrel with Henri; I shall be his aide−de−camp.'
His advice was readily followed, Henri was chosen; but when a second in command was to be elected, he said no, he was second, for he should always obey M. de Donnissan, and entreated that the honor might not be given to him, saying that at twenty years of age he had neither weight nor experience, that his valor led him to be first in battle, but in council his youth prevented him from being attended to; and, indeed, after giving his opinion, he usually fell asleep while others were debating. He was, however, elected; and as soon as M. de Lescure heard the shouts of joy with which the peasants received the intelligence, he sent Madame de Lescure to bring him to his bedside. She found him hidden in a corner, weeping bitterly; and when he came to his cousin, he embraced him, saving earnestly, again and again, that he was not fit to be general, he only knew how to fight, he was too young and could never silence those who opposed his designs, and entreated him to take the command as soon as he was cured. 'That I do not expect,' said M. de Lescure; 'but if it should happen, I will be your aide−de−camp, and help you to conquer the shyness which prevents your strength of character from silencing the murmurers and the ambitious.'
Henri accordingly took the command; but it was a melancholy office that devolved upon him of dragging onward his broken and dejected peasants, half−starved, half−clothed, and followed by a wretched train of women, children, and wounded; a sad change from the bright hopes with which, not six months before, he had been called to the head of his tenants. Yet still his high courage gained some triumphs, which for a time revived the spirits of his forces and restored their confidence. He was active and undaunted, and it was about this time, when in pursuit of the Blues, he was attacked by a foot soldier when alone in a narrow lane. His right hand was useless, but he seized the man's collar with his 1eft, and held him fast, managing his horse with his legs till his men came up. He would not allow them to kill the soldier, but set him free, saying 'Return to the Republicans, and tell them that you were alone with the general of the brigands, who had but one hand and no weapons, yet you could not kill him'. Brigands was the name given by the Republicans, the true robbers, to the Royalists, who, in fact, by this time, owing to the wild life they had so long led, had acquired a somewhat rude and savage appearance. They wore grey cloth coats and trousers, broad hats, white sashes with knots of different colours to mark the rank of the officers, and red woolen handkerchiefs. These were made in the country, and were at first chiefly worn by Henri, who usually had one round his neck, another round his waist, and a third to support his wounded hand; but the other officers, having heard the Blues cry out to aim at the red handkerchief, themselves adopted the same badge, in order that he might be less conspicuous.
In the meantime a few days' rest at Laval had at first so alleviated the sufferings of M. de Lescure, that hopes were entertained of his recovery; but he ventured on greater exertions of strength than he was able to bear, and fever returned, which had weakened him greatly before it became necessary to travel onwards. Early in the morning, a day or two before their departure, he called to his wife, who was lying on a mattress on the floor, and desired her to open the curtains, asking, as she did so, if it was a clear day. 'Yes,' said she. 'Then,' he answered, 'I have a sort of veil before my eyes, I cannot see distinctly; I always thought my wound was mortal, and now I no longer doubt. My dear, I must leave you, that is my only regret, except that I could not restore my king to the throne; I leave you in the midst of a civil war, that is what afflicts me. Try to save yourself. Disguise yourself, and attempt to reach England.' Then seeing her choked with tears, he continued: 'Yes, your grief alone makes me regret life; for my own part, I die tranquil; I have indeed sinned, but I have always served God with piety; I have fought, and I die for Him, and I hope in His mercy. I have often seen death, and I do not fear it I go to heaven with a sure trust, I grieve but for you; I hoped to have made you happy; if I ever have given you any reason to complain, forgive me.' Finding her grief beyond all consolation, he allowed her to call the surgeons, saying that it was possible he might be mistaken.
They gave some hope, which cheered her spirits, though he still said he did not believe them. The next day they left Laval; and on the way, while the carriage was stopping, a person came to the door and read the details of the execution of Marie Antoinette which Madame de Lescure had kept from his knowledge. It was a great shock to him, for he had known the Queen personally, and throughout the day he wearied himself with exclamations on the horrible crime. That night at Ernee he received the Sacrament, and at the same time became speechless, and could only lie holding his wife's hand and looking sometimes at her, sometimes toward heaven. But the cruel enemy were close behind, and there was no rest on earth even for the dying. Madame de Lescure implored her friends to leave them behind; but they told her she would be exposed to a frightful death, and that his body would fall into the enemy's hands; and she was forced to consent to his removal. Her mother and her other friends would not permit her to remain in the carriage with him; she was placed on horseback and her maid and the surgeon were with him. An hour after, on the 3rd of November, he died, but his wife did not know her loss till the evening when they arrived at Fongeres; for though the surgeon left the carriage on his death, the maid, fearing the effect which the knowledge might have upon her in the midst of her journey, remained for seven hours in the carriage by his side, during two of which she was in a fainting fit.
When Madame de Lescure and Henri de la Rochejaquelein met the next morning, they sat for a quarter of an hour without speaking, and weeping bitterly. At last she said 'You have lost your best friend,' and he replied, 'Take my life, if it could restore him.'
Scarcely anything can be imagined more miserable than the condition of the army, or more terrible than the situation of the young general, who felt himself responsible for its safety, and was compelled daily to see its sufferings and find his plans thwarted by the obstinacy and folly of the other officers, crushed by an overwhelming force, knowing that there was no quarter from which help could come, yet still struggling on in fulfillment of his sad duty. The hopes and expectations which had filled his heart a few months back had long passed away; nothing was around him but misery, nothing before him but desolation; but still he never failed in courage, in mildness, in confidence in Heaven.
At Mans he met with a horrible defeat; at first, indeed, with a small party he broke the columns of the enemy, but fresh men were constantly brought up, and his peasants gave way and retreated, their officers following them. He tried to lead them back through the hedges, and if he had succeeded, would surely have gained the victory. Three times with two other officers he dashed into the midst of the Blues; but the broken, dispirited peasants would not follow him, not one would even turn to fire a shot. At last, in leaping a hedge, his saddle turned, and he fell, without indeed being hurt, but the sight of his fall added to the terror of the miserable Vendeans. He struggled long and desperately through the long night that followed to defend the gates of the town, but with the light of morning the enemy perceived his weakness and effected their entrance. His followers had in the meantime gradually retired into the country beyond, but those who could not escape fell a prey to the cruelty of the Republicans. 'I thought you had perished,' said Madame de Lescure, when he overtook her. 'Would that I had,' was his answer.
He now resolved to cross the Loire, and return to his native Bocage, where the well−known woods would afford a better protection to his followers. It was at Craon, on their route to the river, that Madame de Lescure saw him for the last time, as he rallied his men, who had been terrified by a false alarm.
She did not return to La Vendee, but, with her mother, was sheltered by the peasants of Brittany throughout the winter and spring until they found means to leave the country.
The Vendeans reached the Loire at Ancenis, but they were only able to find two small boats to carry them over. On the other side, however, were four great ferry boats loaded with hay; and Henri, with Stofflet, three other officers, and eighteen soldiers crossed the river in their two boats, intending to take possession of them, send them back for the rest of the army, and in the meantime protect the passage from the Blues on the Vendean side.
Unfortunately, however, he had scarcely crossed before the pursuers came down upon his troops, drove them back from Ancenis, and entirely prevented them from attempting the passage, while at the same time Henri and his companions were attacked and forced from the river by a body of Republicans on their side. A last resistance was attempted by the retreating Vendeans at Savenay, where they fought nobly but in vain; four thousand were shot on the field of battle, the chiefs were made prisoners and carried to Nantes or Angers, where they were guillotined, and a few who succeeded in escaping found shelter among the Bretons, or one by one found their way back to La Vendee. M. de Donnissan was amongst those who were guillotined, and M. d'Elbee, who was seized shortly after, was shot with his wife.
Henri, with his few companions, when driven from the banks of the Loire, dismissed the eighteen soldiers, whose number would only have attracted attention without being sufficient for protection; but the five chiefs crossed the fields and wandered through the country without meeting a single inhabitant all the houses were burnt down, and the few remaining peasants hidden in the woods. At last, after four−and−twenty hours, walking, they came to an inhabited farm, where they lay down to sleep on the straw. The next moment the farmer came to tell them the Blues were coming; but they were so worn out with fatigue, that they would not move. The Blues were happily, also, very tired, and, without making any search, laid down on the other side of the heap of straw, and also fell asleep. Before daylight the Vendeans rose and set out again, walking miles and miles in the midst of desolation, until, after several days, they came to Henri's own village of St. Aubin, where he sought out his aunt, who was in concealment there, and remained with her for three days, utterly overwhelmed with grief at his fatal separation from his army, and only longing for an opportunity of giving his life in the good cause.
Beyond all his hopes, the peasants no sooner heard his name, than once more they rallied round the white standard, as determined as ever not to yield to the Revolutionary government; and the beginning of the year 1794 found him once more at the head of a considerable force, encamped in the forests of Vesins, guarding the villages around from the cruelties of the Blues. He was now doubly beloved and trusted by the followers who had proved his worth, and who even yet looked forward to triumphs beneath his brave guidance; but it was not so with him, he had learnt the lesson of disappointment, and though always active and cheerful, his mind was made up, and the only hope he cherished was of meeting the death of a soldier. His headquarters were in the midst of a forest, where one of the Republican officers, who was made prisoner, was much surprised to find the much−dreaded chieftain of the Royalists living in a hut formed of boughs of trees, dressed almost like a peasant, and with his arm still in a sling. This person was shot, because he was found to be commissioned to promise pardon to the peasants, and afterwards to massacre them; but Henri had not learnt cruelty from his persecutors, and his last words were of forgiveness.
It was on Ash Wednesday that he had repulsed an attack of the enemy, and had almost driven them out of the wood, when, perceiving two soldiers hiding behind a hedge, he stopped, crying out, 'Surrender, I spare you.' As he spoke one of them leveled his musket, fired, and stretched him dead on the ground without a groan. Stofflet, coming up the next moment, killed the murderer with one stroke of his sword; but the remaining soldier was spared out of regard to the last words of the general. The Vendeans wept bitterly, but there was no time to indulge their sorrow, for the enemy were returning upon them; and, to save their chieftain's corpse from insult, they hastily dug a grave, in which they placed both bodies, and retreated as the Blues came up to occupy the ground. The Republicans sought for the spot, but it was preserved from their knowledge; and the high−spirited, pure−hearted Henri de la Rochejaquelein sleeps beside his enemy in the midst of the woodlands where be won for himself eternal honor. His name is still loved beyond all others; the Vendeans seldom pronounce it without touching their hats, and it is the highest glory of many a family that one of their number has served under Monsieur Henri.
Stofflet succeeded to the command, and carried on the war with great skill and courage for another year, though with barbarities such as had never been permitted by the gentle men; but his career was stained by the death of Marigny, whom, by false accusations, he was induced to sentence to be shot. Marigny showed great courage and resignation, himself giving the word to fire perhaps at that moment remembering the warning of M. de Lescure. Stofflet repented bitterly, and never ceased to lament his death. He was at length made prisoner, and shot, with his last words declaring his devotion to his king and his faith.
Thus ends the tale of the Vendean war, undertaken in the best of causes, for the honor of God and His Church, and the rescue of one of the most innocent of kings, by men whose saintly characters and dauntless courage have seldom been surpassed by martyrs or heroes of any age.
It closed with blood, with fire, with miseries almost unequalled; yet who would dare to say that the lives of Cathelineau, Bonchamp, Lescure, La Rochejaquelein, with their hundreds of brave and pious followers, were devoted in vain? Who could wish to see their brightness dimmed with earthly rewards?
And though the powers of evil were permitted to prevail on earth, yet what could their utmost triumph effect against the faithful, but to make for them, in the words of the child king for whom they fought, one of those thorny paths that lead to glory!
Excerpted from: A Book of Golden Deeds, by Charlotte M. Yonge
|
|
|
| Trump ambassador lodges pro-life declaration from US in official UN record |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-18-2020, 01:57 PM - Forum: Abortion
- No Replies
|
|
Trump ambassador lodges pro-life declaration from US in official UN record
The declaration could help inhibit pro-abortion advocacy from the UN system.
U.N. ambassador Kelly Craft
NEW YORK, December 18, 2020 (C-Fam) — The U.S. government has officially filed a pro-life declaration with the UN Secretary General. Joined by 34 other countries, the document enshrines the Trump administration’s pro-life diplomacy on the official record of the General Assembly.
“The United States strongly supports the dignity of all human beings and protecting life from the moment of conception throughout the lifespan,” Ambassador Kelly Craft wrote to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres transmitting the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women’s Health and Strengthening the Family.
Following the letter, the declaration was issued as an official document of the United Nations last week and circulated on December 11, after having been translated into all six official UN languages.
“The United States, along with our like-minded partners, believes strongly that there is no international right to abortion and that the United Nations must respect national laws and policies on the matter, absent external pressure,” Ambassador Craft added.
Craft instructed the Secretary General to share the declaration with member states more broadly and to include it on official record of the General Assembly, “inviting all Member States to sign the declaration.”
While the declaration is not binding, the fact that it is now on the record of the General Assembly has legal significance. It officially documents the pro-life posture of the 34 countries who co-signed the declaration. This may influence how UN agencies implement UN policies reflected in the Declaration, including on issues such as maternal health and women’s policies.
The declaration states that “sexual and reproductive health,” a term often used by UN agencies as synonymous with abortion, “must always promote optimal health, the highest attainable standard of health, without including abortion.”
This statement of itself may not prevent future abuses by UN agencies who are likely to continue to promote abortion. But the declaration could help inhibit pro-abortion advocacy from the UN system as well as encourage UN member states who signed the declaration to hold the UN system accountable.
The Geneva Consensus Declaration was signed by 32 countries on October 22, 2020. It reaffirms long-established norms of international law on the family, the protection of life, and protection of motherhood.
The declaration reaffirms the “inherent dignity and worth of the human person” and that “every human being has the inherent right to life,” citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also reaffirms that the “the child… needs special safeguards and care… before as well as after birth,” citing the 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child.
The declaration even reaffirms that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” This is a phrase in several international human rights treaties, following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
These norms have become contentious at UN headquarters because of radical forms of feminism and gender ideology. They were vehemently opposed in UN negotiations by the Obama administration.
A Biden administration is expected to continue to oppose such statements, as the Obama administration did. Abortion groups are calling on Biden to withdraw from the declaration. But it is unclear what legal options he might have other than making more statements that run counter to U.S. obligations under international law.
Published with permission from C-Fam.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Irish Man Sentenced to Two Months in Prison For Failing to Wear a Face Mask |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-18-2020, 01:04 PM - Forum: Socialism & Communism
- No Replies
|
|
Irish Man Sentenced to Two Months in Prison For Failing to Wear a Face Mask
Authorities ignored claim he was medically exempt.
Summit News | 17 December, 2020
An Irish man has been sentenced to two months in prison for failing to wear a face mask on a bus while traveling to his uncle’s funeral despite claiming he was medically exempt.
Andrew Heasman was traveling from Dublin to Knock in the Republic of Ireland on July 14 to lay his relative to rest when he was asked by a bus driver to wear his mask properly.
Garda police officer Thomas Bowens told Castlebar District Court that Heasman was wearing his mask “like a hat” and refused to follow orders to cover his mouth and nose, prompting other passengers to exit the bus.
Mr Heasman told authorities he was medically exempt and that under data protection laws, he was not legally required to provide evidence.
Quote:A Co Mayo man has been sentenced to two months in prison for failure to wear a face mask on a Bus Éireann coach in Ballyhaunis on 14 July last https://t.co/qnLym73HRG
Despite protesting that the charges were “trumped up,” Heasman was convicted under the Health Act 1947 and now faces two years in jail.
According to Judge Fiona Lydon, Heasman’s behavior had been “totally inappropriate,” with the judge asserting, “she was satisfied that all of the ingredients required to secure a conviction had been satisfied by the State.”
Respondents to the story expressed a mixture of opinions, with some proclaiming their satisfaction at the man being sent to prison and others decrying the draconian response.
“Ireland is quickly becoming a communist country. Horrible treatment of our people,” said one.
“Good, I hope it makes other anti maskers sit up and take notice,” remarked another.
|
|
|
|
| Irish Man Sentenced to Two Months in Prison For Failing to Wear a Face Mask |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-18-2020, 01:04 PM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
Irish Man Sentenced to Two Months in Prison For Failing to Wear a Face Mask
Authorities ignored claim he was medically exempt.
Summit News | 17 December, 2020
An Irish man has been sentenced to two months in prison for failing to wear a face mask on a bus while traveling to his uncle’s funeral despite claiming he was medically exempt.
Andrew Heasman was traveling from Dublin to Knock in the Republic of Ireland on July 14 to lay his relative to rest when he was asked by a bus driver to wear his mask properly.
Garda police officer Thomas Bowens told Castlebar District Court that Heasman was wearing his mask “like a hat” and refused to follow orders to cover his mouth and nose, prompting other passengers to exit the bus.
Mr Heasman told authorities he was medically exempt and that under data protection laws, he was not legally required to provide evidence.
Quote:A Co Mayo man has been sentenced to two months in prison for failure to wear a face mask on a Bus Éireann coach in Ballyhaunis on 14 July last https://t.co/qnLym73HRG
Despite protesting that the charges were “trumped up,” Heasman was convicted under the Health Act 1947 and now faces two years in jail.
According to Judge Fiona Lydon, Heasman’s behavior had been “totally inappropriate,” with the judge asserting, “she was satisfied that all of the ingredients required to secure a conviction had been satisfied by the State.”
Respondents to the story expressed a mixture of opinions, with some proclaiming their satisfaction at the man being sent to prison and others decrying the draconian response.
“Ireland is quickly becoming a communist country. Horrible treatment of our people,” said one.
“Good, I hope it makes other anti maskers sit up and take notice,” remarked another.
|
|
|
|
| US university grafts scalps from aborted babies onto ‘humanized’ mice |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-18-2020, 11:09 AM - Forum: Abortion
- No Replies
|
|
US university grafts scalps from aborted babies onto ‘humanized’ mice
Mothers reportedly provided written consent for their aborted children to be used in this research.
December 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The University of Pittsburgh is conducting medical research by grafting scalps from aborted babies onto rodents.
After publishing a report in the National Catholic Register about the many ways that aborted children are being used for scientific research at major universities and hospitals in the United States, author Stacy A. Trasancos tweeted a summary of her horrifying findings. She links the mengelian research to U.S. COVID-19 guru, Dr. Anthony Fauci:
Quote:Aborted baby scalps grafted onto mice. Their organs transplanted. Humanized mice developed at the University of Pittsburgh, all to study the immune system. Supported by Dr. Fauci's NIAID. Paid for by us.
Trasancos is Executive Director of Bishop Joseph Strickland's St. Philip Institute of Catechesis and Evangelization in the Diocese of Tyler, Texas.
Bishop Strickland retweeted her report, declaring:
Quote:These are crimes against humanity that should be prosecuted. Silence in the face of these atrocities simply adds to the evil. Wake up America! Demand that this stops NOW! https://t.co/sKkDNOfLBJ
In “How Aborted Children Are Used in Medical Research in 2020,” Trasancos explained that while currently there is heightened interest in the use of aborted fetal cell lines in COVID-19 vaccine research and production, the use of electively-aborted children by university, government, and industrial scientists for research is shockingly commonplace.
In a scientific report published at Nature.com in September, University of Pittsburgh research scientists explained unselfconsciously the basis for their study: “Human skin is a significant barrier for protection against pathogen transmission. Rodent models used to investigate human-specific pathogens that target the skin are generated by introducing human skin grafts to immunocompromised rodent strains.”
The researchers write that “Human fetal tissues were obtained from the Health Sciences Tissue Bank at the University of Pittsburgh. Human fetal tissues for constructing humanized rodents were handled and processed under biosafety level 2 conditions.”
Trasancos uncovered that the “full-thickness fetal skin was taken from humans aborted at the gestational age of 18 to 20 weeks of pregnancy at the Magee-Women’s Hospital and the University of Pittsburgh Health Sciences Tissue Bank.”
“Full-thickness human skin from fetuses was grafted onto rodents while simultaneously co-engrafting the same fetus’s lymphoid tissues and hematopoietic stem cells from the liver, so that the rodent models were humanized with organs and skin from the same child,” wrote Trasancos.
“From the aborted fetuses, thymus, liver, spleen and full-thickness skin were transplanted and grafted onto the rodents and allowed to grow. Then the rodent models were given a staph infection on the skin to study how the internal organs responded,” she added.
The human skin grafted over the rib cages of rodents grew blood vessels and immune cells, and human hair grew on the grafted fetal scalps. As Trasancos notes, “ Images literally show a patch of baby hair growing on a mouse’s back.”
Mothers reportedly provided written consent for their aborted children to be used in this research.
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which has been headed by Anthony Fauci, M.D., since 1984. NIAID has partnered this year with Pharmaceutical giant Moderna to develop a COVID-19 vaccine.
Trasancos went on to cite two other recent studies that used aborted children.
For one in which researchers at the University of California and the California Environmental Protection Agency assessed exposure to certain fire retardants in unborn children, a total of 249 women scheduled for a second-trimester abortion were recruited. Trasancos summed up the disturbing nature of the research:
Quote:The paper emphasized the need for further study of fetuses in this gestational range. These second-trimester fetuses essentially lived their short lives in utero as analytical machines and then were used to provide information to keep children living in society safe.
For a third study, development of immunities in newborns, published in the journal Science, a team at Yale University’s Department of Immunology dissected the bodies of fifteen children aborted in the second trimester of pregnancy, removing their liver, bone marrow and spleen.
Trasancos noted that this research was also funded by NIH as well as by a fellowship at Yale and Pew Charitable Trusts.
Trasancos concluded:
Quote:At a fundamental level, life-saving research ought to preserve human dignity. The fetal specimens described in these scientific papers — the children who were killed and dissected like the best kind of lab rats — all deserved to be named and counted in the human family.
They were more than a statistic in a table of chemical exposure levels, or a chart of PBDE levels across maternal-placental-fetal biological matrices, or a chunk of scalp grafted grotesquely onto a rodent. They were unwanted children who were killed by an industry that exploited them to make the lives of the wanted humans better. Catholics have a duty to demand better from scientists.
According to her biography, Stacy A. Trasancos has a doctorate in chemistry and a master’s in dogmatic theology.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
|
|
| Miracle of St. Januarius’s blood fails, blood doesn’t liquify [December 16, 2020] |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-18-2020, 10:57 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
|
‘Bad omen’: Miracle of St. Januarius’s blood fails, blood doesn’t liquify
'Historically when his blood does not liquify… it’s a bad omen,' explained Father John Zuhlsdorf.
NAPLES, Italy, December 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The dried blood of St. Januarius failed to liquify Wednesday, one of three days every year that the miracle is reported to happen.
“Historically when his blood does not liquify… it’s a bad omen,” wrote priest-blogger Father John Zuhlsdorf. “The Wuhan Devil. Harris Biden. Now this.”
The tri-annual miracle of the liquefaction of St. Januarius’s blood has been reported since at least the 14th century and occurs on at least three specific dates every year: the saint’s feast day of September 19, the Saturday before the first Sunday of May, and December 16, which is the anniversary of the 1631 eruption of Mount Vesuvius.
“When the blood failed to liquefy on September 19, 1980, a massive earthquake hit southern Italy two months later, killing more than 3,000 people,” Reuters noted.
La Repubblica reports that “At 9 o'clock, the abbot of the Chapel of San Gennaro, Monsignor De Gregorio, took the reliquary with the blood of the Patron Saint from the safe of the Chapel and brought it to the main altar of the Cathedral for the celebration of Mass.” The reliquary was later returned to the Chapel after the blood remained dry with no miraculous liquefaction being observed.
Traditionally, the failure of the miracle is taken as a bad omen, as when the miracle failed before the devastating eruption of Vesuvius in 1631. According to Radio Vatikan, when the miracle failed in 1980 “[t]he citizens of Naples associated this with the earthquake of Irpinia, when 2,900 people died in the worst natural disaster in Italian post-war history [i.e., since 1945]. Prior to that, it was in 1973 when Neapolitans waited in vain for the blood to liquefy. That year, Naples was visited by a cholera epidemic.”
St. Januarius himself was a native of Naples, martyred during the bloody reign of Diocletian in the 4th century. A millennium later, in 1389, whilst a local priest was processing the relics around the cathedral in Naples, he witnessed the blood begin to liquefy and bubble. Since this time, the relics have been reported to miraculously liquefy on at least three specific dates each year, drawing numerous spectators and faithful. It has been noted that occasionally the blood will remain solid, usually preceding an “outbreak of disease, famine, war or political suppression,” according to Miracles of the Church.
The last time that the saintly blood did not become liquid was on December 16, 2016.
A number of popes have venerated the relics over the centuries, most recently with Pope Francis visiting the Cathedral in Naples in March 2015. After Francis gave a blessing with the relic, Cardinal Sepe, the Archbishop of Naples, noticed the blood partially liquefy. The last time the had miracle occurred with the blood in the presence of a pope was when Pius IX visited in 1848; the visits of both Pope Benedict XVI and John Paul II did not result in the miraculous liquefaction.
|
|
|
|
| Twitter Says It Will REMOVE All Posts Claiming Vaccines Can Harm People |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-18-2020, 10:48 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- No Replies
|
|
Twitter Says It Will REMOVE All Posts Claiming Vaccines Can Harm People
Despite widespread reports of health workers having allergic reactions to Pfizer shot
Summit News | 17 December, 2020
Twitter has declared that it will remove all posts that suggest there are any “adverse impacts or effects of receiving vaccinations,” despite reports already emerging of health workers getting sick from taking Pfizer’s coronavirus shot.
Twitter announced that beginning next week it will memory-hole any posts that “invoke a deliberate conspiracy” or “advance harmful, false, or misleading narratives” about vaccines.
“Using a combination of technology and human review, we will begin enforcing this updated policy on December 21, and expanding our actions during the following weeks,” the company proclaimed.
Twitter added that it will be monitoring posts about vaccinations “in close consultation with local, national, and global public health authorities around the world.”
Quote:As the global distribution of #COVID19 vaccines begins, we’re providing guidance on how we’ll address potentially harmful misleading content about these vaccines and help people stay informed. https://t.co/1rRi5QWILz
The tech company will also wipe any posts that suggest vaccines “are used to intentionally cause harm,” or “control populations,” or are “unnecessary.”
The statement also notes that posts will be scrubbed if they contain “false claims which have been widely debunked about the adverse impacts or effects of receiving vaccinations.”
Exactly what “debunked” means was not clarified. Presumably it means any claims about vaccines that Twitter disagrees with.
The New York Times and others reported Wednesday that healthcare workers in Alaska have been hospitalized with a serious allergic reaction after taking Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.
The development follows reports last week from Britain where some healthcare workers reported serious allergic reactions to the vaccine, prompting Britain’s medical regulator to issue a warning people with a history of allergies not to take the shot.
There is a mountain of documented evidence that some vaccines can cause harm and have adverse effects, and compared to previous vaccines, the coronavirus shot is relatively untested, indeed six people even DIED during the rush to develop it.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulators also revealed that some people who got Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine during its trial have since developed Bell’s palsy, a form of facial paralysis.
Both the US and UK governments have rolled out technology specifically to monitor adverse effects of the vaccine, because they know there will be many, many cases.
Yet Twitter appears to be decreeing that any suggestion the shot could cause damage will be met with strict censorship.
Where it cannot prove something has been “debunked” and remove the post entirely, Twitter says it intends to attach “warning” labels to tweets that “advance unsubstantiated rumours, disputed claims, as well as incomplete or out-of-context information about vaccines.”
Last month, Twitter declared that it will send warnings to everyone who likes a post the company deems to contain “misleading information”.
|
|
|
|
| Feast of Our Lady's Expectation - December 18th |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-18-2020, 07:17 AM - Forum: Our Lady
- Replies (3)
|
|
December 18 – Expectation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Taken from The Liturgical Year by Dom Prosper Gueranger (1841-1875)
This Feast, which is now kept, not only throughout the whole of Spain, but in almost all the Churches of the Catholic world, owes its origin to the Bishops of the tenth Council of Toledo, in 656. These Prelates having thought that there was an incongruity in the ancient practice of celebrating the feast of the Annunciation on the twenty-fifth of March, inasmuch as this joy solemnity frequently occurs at the time when the Church is intent upon the Passion of our Lord, and is sometimes obliged to be transferred into Easter Time, with which it is out of harmony for another reason—they decreed that, henceforth, in the Church of Spain there should be kept, eight days before Christ, a solemn Feast with an Octave, in honor of the Annunciation, and as a preparation for the great solemnity of our Lord’s Nativity. In course of time, however, the Church of Spain saw the necessity of returning to the practice of the Church of Rome, and of those of the whole world, which solemnize the twenty-fifth of March as the day of our Lady’s Annunciation and the Incarnation of the Son of God. But such had been, for ages, the devotion of the people for the Feast of the eighteenth of December, that it was considered requisite to maintain some vestige of it. They discontinued, therefore, to celebrate the Annunciation on this day; but the faithful were requested to consider, with devotion, what must have been the sentiments of the Holy Mother of God during the days immediately preceding her giving him birth. A new Feast was instituted, under the name of the Expectation of the Blessed Virgin’s Delivery.
This Feast, which sometimes goes under the name of Our Lady of O, or the Feast of O, on account of the Great Antiphons which are sung during these days, and, in a special manner, of that which begins O Virgo Virginum (which is still used in the Vespers of the Expectation, together with the O Adonai, the Antiphon of the Advent Office)—is kept with great devotion in Spain. A High Mass is sung, at a very early hour, each morning during the Octave, at which all who are with child, whether rich or poor, consider it a duty to assist, that they may thus honor our Lady’s Maternity, and beg her blessing upon themselves. It is not to be wondered at that the Holy See has approved of this pious practice being introduced into almost every other country. We find that the Church of Milan, long before Rome conceded this feast to the various dioceses of Christendom, celebrated the Office of our Lady’s Annunciation on the sixth and last Sunday of Advent, and called the whole week following the Hebdomada de Exceptato (for thus the popular expression had corrupted the word Expectato). But these details belong strictly to the archaeology of the Liturgy, and enter not into the plan of our present work; let us, then, return to the Feast of our Lady’s Expectation, which the Church has established and sanctioned as a new means of exciting the attention of the faithful during these last days of Advent.
Most just indeed it is, O Holy Mother of God, that we should unite in that ardent desire thou hadst to see Him, who had been concealed for nine months in thy chaste womb; to know the features of this Son of the heavenly Father, who is also thine; to come to that blissful hour of his Birth, which will give Glory to God in the highest, and, on earth, Peace to men of good will. Yes, dear Mother, the time is fast approaching, though not fast enough to satisfy thy desires and ours. Make us redouble our attention to the great mystery; complete our preparation by thy powerful prayers for us, that when the solemn hour is come, our Jesus may find no obstacle to his entering into our hearts.
The Great Antiphon to Our Lady
O Virgo virginum, quomodo fiet istud? quia nec primam similem visa es, nec habere sequentem. Filiæ Jerusalem, quid me admiramini? Divinum est mysterium hoc quod carnitis.
O Virgin of virgins! how shall this be? for never was there one like thee, nor will there ever be. Ye daughters of Jerusalem, why look ye wondering at me? What ye behold, is a divine mystery.
|
|
|
|
| December 18th - St. Gatian |
|
Posted by: Elizabeth - 12-18-2020, 12:32 AM - Forum: December
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Saint Gatian
First Bishop of Tours
(† First Century)
Saint Gatian, a disciple of the Apostles and the first bishop of Tours, was sent to that city at the same time as Saint Denys to Paris, Saint Trophimus to Arles, Saint Martial to Limoges, Saint Saturninus to Toulouse, Saint Sergius Paulus to Narbonne, and Saint Austremoine into Auvergne. The Gauls in that region were addicted to the worship of their ancient idols, to which they had added the divinities of Rome. He found them enslaved to their various superstitions, and began to teach them the vanity of idols and the impossibility of a plurality of gods. After dispersing the false ideas and fears they had conceived concerning the gods of the empire, he presented to them the faith of the Gospel and the true God. He showed them the necessity of the Redemption and spoke of the Second Coming of the Saviour as Judge, when He will reward the virtue of those who have done good, and exile evildoers to a lamentable eternity.
The Saint was often interrupted in his instructions by harassers, and when denounced to the magistrates, was mistreated and threatened with death; but no contradictions or sufferings were able to discourage or daunt this apostle. By his perseverance he gained several to Christ. He left the city, however, and established a sort of headquarters in a rude grotto surrounded by thorn bushes. There he celebrated the divine mysteries. His splendid virtues, until then unknown to this untaught populace, won many to recognition of the truth of the religion he taught. He traveled in the area, accompanied by his faithful disciples, to preach and to exercise mercy. There were, it seems, no illnesses which he did not cure, nor demons which he did not drive away with the sign of the Cross. The pagan altars began to be abandoned, and it was permitted to establish small oratories where the faithful could assemble. The people learned to sing the praises of the true God, and clerics were formed to officiate. Saint Gatian established outside the city, a cemetery for the burial of Christians.
The holy bishop Gatian died at an advanced age, having seen Our Lord Jesus Christ come to him during his last illness to awake him from sleep and give him Holy Communion in Viaticum; he died seven days later. The Cathedral of Tours still possesses a few fragments of his relics, which Saint Martin had placed in that principal church, but which wars and persecutions scattered and destroyed in large part.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1991 Interview - 'It is a matter of Faith that separates us from Rome' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-17-2020, 01:50 PM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Exclusive Interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter No. 79 January-February 1991
Translated by The Recusant from the French
"It is no longer just a question of liturgy, as important as it is, that separates us from Rome, but a matter of faith."
On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the founding of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X , Archbishop Lefebvre kindly answered the questions we asked him. "It is no longer just a question of liturgy, as important as it is, that separates us from Rome, but a matter of faith." We also not how the prelate destroys the calumnies that have been made against him about the conciliar documents on Religious Liberty and “The Church in the Modern World.”
Fideliter - Since the coronations there has been no more contact with Rome; however, as you told us, Cardinal Oddi telephoned you saying, “Things have got to be sorted out. Make a little act of asking forgiveness to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you.” So why not try this one last approach and why do you think it impossible?
Archbishop Lefebvre – It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome which is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. The principles which now guide the conciliar Church are more and more overtly contrary to Catholic doctrine.
Before the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations, Cardinal Casaroli recently declared:
Quote:“I want to dwell somewhat on one specific aspect of the fundamental freedom of thinking and acting according to one’s conscience: religious liberty ... the Catholic Church and her Supreme Pastor , who has made human rights one of the major themes of his preaching, have not failed to recall that, in a world made by man and for man, the whole organization of society has meaning only insofar as it is the human dimension a central concern.”
To hear that in the mouth of a cardinal! He does not speak of God! For his part, Cardinal Ratzinger, presenting a discussion paper on the relationship between the Magisterium and theologians, affirms he says Quote:“for the first time clearly” that “the decisions of the Magisterium cannot be the last word on the matter as such” but are “a kind of provisional disposition ... the core remains stable but the particular aspects that influence the circumstances of that time may need correction later on. In this regard one can point to the declarations of the popes of the last century. The anti-modernist decisions rendered a great service but they are now outdated.”
And voila, the position on modernism is turned around! These reflections are absolutely insane.
Finally the Pope is more ecumenist than ever. All the false ideas of the Council continue to develop, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They are hiding less and less. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with such a hierarchy.
Fideliter- Do you think the situation has deteriorated even further since the time before the consecrations when you engaged in discussions that led to the drafting of the Protocol of 5th May 1988?
Archbishop Lefebvre - Oh yes! For example the making of the Profession of Faith which is now claimed by Cardinal Ratzinger since the beginning of 1989. This is a very serious matter. Because he asks all those [Traditionalists] who rallied to them [i.e. signed an agreement with Rome - trans] or could do to make a profession of faith in the Council documents and in the post-conciliar reforms. For us it is impossible.
We will have to wait some more before considering the prospect of an agreement. For my part I believe that only God can intervene as humanly we do not [see] any possibility of Rome straightening things out.
For fifteen years we dialogued to try to put the tradition back in its place of honour, in that place in the Church which it has by right. We ran up against a continual refusal. What Rome grants in favour of this tradition at present is nothing but a purely political gesture, a piece of diplomacy so as to force people into compromise. But it is not a conviction of the benefits of Tradition.
Fideliter - When we see that Dom Gérard and the Fraternity of St. Peter got to keep the liturgy and catechism without – so they say - have conceded anything, some people who are troubled to find themselves in a difficult situation with Rome, can be tempted to make an agreement in their turn, through lassitude. They have managed, so they say, to get along with Rome without having to relinquish anything.
Archbishop Lefebvre - When they say they don’t have to give anything up, that’s false. They have given up the ability to oppose Rome. They cannot say anything any more. They must remain silent given the favours that have been granted them. It is now impossible for them to expose the errors of the Conciliar Church. Softly, softly they adhere, even be it only by their Profession of Faith that is requested by Cardinal Ratzinger. I think Dom Gérard is about to publish a small book written by one of his monks on Religious Liberty and which will try to justify it.
From the point of view of ideas, they begin to slide ever so slowly and end up by admitting the false ideas of the Council, because Rome has granted them some favours of Tradition. It’s a very dangerous situation.
During the audience which he granted to Dom Gérard and a delegation of monks from Le Barroux, the Pope expressed the desire to see them continue to evolve. He didn’t hide what he thought. They must submit more and more to the Archbishop [of their diocese] and they must take care not to act as though the conciliar reforms are less-than-appreciated because they have been granted an exceptions to the liturgical rule of the Council. They must also make an effort to bring with them all those who are not yet in obedience to the Holy Father.
These are pressing invitations made to them and it’s this which is the purpose of the privileges granted to them. That is why Dom Gérard wrote to Mother Anne-Marie Simoulin, Father Innocent-Marie, the Capuchins of Morgon and others to try even to influence me. On his return from Rome he launched the offensive to try to convince those who do not follow him to follow in his wake and rally to Rome.
All the things that have been granted to them have only been agreed to with the goal of ensuring that all those who adhere to or are related to the Society will break from it and submit to Rome.
Fideliter - Dom Gérard is thus taking on the role that had devolved to Mgr. Perl.
Archbishop Lefebvre - I have had the opportunity to see at least three letters which Mgr. Perl sent in response to people who had written to him. It is always the same. It is essential to make an effort among those who do not understand the need to make an agreement with the Pope and the Council. It's a shame, he wrote, to see that there have been no more agreements.
Fideliter - You have said, concerning Dom Gérard and others: “They have betrayed us. They are now giving a helping hand to those who demolish the Church, the Liberals, the modernists.” Isn’t that a bit harsh?
Archbishop Lefebvre – Not at all, no! They appealed to me for fifteen years. It was not I who went looking for them. It is they themselves who came to me and asked me for support, for ordinations, for the friendship of our priests and at the same time the opening of our priories to help them financially. They took full advantage of us, as much as they were able. We did it with good will and even generosity. I was happy to do these ordinations, to open our houses so that they could take advantage of the generosity of our benefactors... And then, suddenly, they telephone me. We no longer need you; it’s over. We’re going over to the archbishop of Avignon. We’re now in agreement with Rome. We’ve signed a protocol.
It gave us no joyfulness of heart to have trouble with Rome. It wasn’t out of pleasure that we had to fight. We did it out of principle, to keep the Catholic faith. And they agreed with us. They cooperated with us. And then suddenly they abandon the true combat to ally themselves with the demolishers on the pretext that they be given some privileges. That’s unacceptable. They have in practice abandoned the fight for the Faith. They cannot attack Rome.
That was what Father de Blignières did too. He has changed completely. He who had written an entire volume condemning religious liberty, he now writes in favour of religious liberty. That’s not being serious. One cannot rely any more on men like that, who have understood nothing of the doctrinal question.
I think in any case they commit a serious mistake. They sinned seriously in acting the way they did, knowingly, and with an unreal nonchalance. I have heard tell of some monks who intend leaving Le Barroux, saying they can no longer live in an atmosphere of lies. I wonder how they managed to stay as long as this in such an atmosphere.
It’s the same with those who are with Dom Augustin [Superior of the Benedictine Monastery of Flavigny - trans]. They were even more traditional than us and now they have completely gone over to the other side. For all young people who are there, it’s awful to think of such a reversal. They entered the monastery to be really in Tradition. It was the safest, firmest bastion of Tradition, even more so than the Society. They thought they were guaranteed forever. And then they completely turn their coats... and they stay put! It is inexplicable.
Fideliter – Fr. de Blignières, Fr. de Nantes and Dom Gérard have practically accused you of lying when you say that you didn’t sign two documents of the Council: Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty and Gaudium et Spes. The journal Sedes sapientiae reproduced a document from the Vatican archives where there is your name written in your hand. What exactly is it and what is this document?
Archbishop Lefebvre - This idea of interpreting signatures as signifying approval of the conciliar documents germinated in the ill-intentioned mind of Fr. de Blignières.
Approvals or refusals documents were obviously made for each particular document. The vote was secret, done on individual cards, and made with a special pen that allowed the calculation of electronic votes. The cards were taken in by the Secretaries from the hand of each voter. The large sheets which were passed around from hand to hand among the Council Fathers and to which everyone added his signature were nothing to do with voting for or against, but signified our presence at this session for voting on four documents.
One would really have to take the Fathers who voted against the text for weathervanes, claiming that they approved something that they had refused a half hour before.
We see what we can expect from the imagination of those who are weathervanes and adore what they burned before, such as the Fr. de Blignières, Dom Gérard and that windmill par excellence Fr. de Nantes.
Fideliter - Some of the faithful are tempted to keep good relations with those who have rallied, or even attend the Mass or ceremonies that they celebrate, do you think that there is a danger in that?
Archbishop Lefebvre - I have always warned the faithful vis-à -vis the sedevacantists, for example. There also people say: “The Mass is fine, so we go to it.”
Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, contacts before and after, which make you little by little change your ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one frequents a milieu.
There are obviously some people who are attracted by the beautiful ceremonies, who also go to Fontgombault, where they have taken up the old mass again. They are in a climate of ambiguity which to my mind is dangerous. Once one finds oneself in this atmosphere, submitted to the Vatican, subject ultimately to the Council, one ends up by becoming ecumenical.
Fideliter - The Pope is very popular. He draws crowds; he wants to gather all Christians together in ecumenism, which he says he is making the cornerstone of his pontificate. At first glance this may seem a noble thought, wanting to actually gather all Christians together.
Archbishop Lefebvre - The Pope wants unity outside the Faith. It is a “communion”. Communion with whom? With what? In what? That is no longer unity. This cannot be except in the unity of the Faith. That is what the Church has always taught. That is why there were missionaries, to convert souls to the Catholic Faith. Now you don’t have to convert any more. The Church is not a hierarchical society, it is a communion. Everything is distorted. It is the destruction of the concept of the Church, of Catholicism. This is very serious and it is what explains why many Catholics are abandoning the Faith.
When you add to that all the outrageous comments that were made at the synod on the priesthood, declarations like those of Cardinals Decourtray and Danneels, one wonders how there can be any Catholics left. After Assisi and after similar declarations, we understand that there were many people who went over to the Mormons, to the Jehovah Witnesses or elsewhere. They lose the Faith, it’s not surprising.
Fideliter - Regarding the synod, Cardinal Lorscheider, announcing that two married Brazilians had been ordained priests, requested that consideration be given to ordaining married men with “life experience”.
Archbishop Lefebvre - All this is being directed against the celibacy of priests. The synod which will be held in Africa will probably be a step towards the abolition of priestly celibacy, that is if God does not intervene first.
Fideliter – People cite as an example the development of Catholicism the considerable increase in the number of vocations in African countries, including Zaire, where there are hundreds of seminarians.
Archbishop Lefebvre - But we must see how they are formed. In these Third World countries there are many children and being a priest is a social promotion. Unfortunately this is not real progress for Catholicism. I'm not saying that everything is negative. But these are all conciliar seminarians, with the New Mass, the introduction of bongo drums, the inculturation in the liturgy. What religion will they have? It will no longer be the Catholic religion, but a kind of religious syncretism with purely exterior manifestations. This is serious, because it means the demolition of all the work done by the missionaries.
Fideliter - Beyond the just the liturgy, you often say, it is now a matter of Faith which makes us oppose modern Rome.
Archbishop Lefebvre - Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is very important, but it is not the most important. The most important is that of the Faith. For us it is resolved. We have the Faith of all time, of the Council of Trent, of the Catechism of St. Pius X, of all the councils and all the popes before Vatican II.
For years they have tried in Rome to show that everything in the Council was fully consistent with Tradition. Now they are showing their true colours. Cardinal Ratzinger never spoke so clearly. There is no tradition. There is no longer any deposit to be transmitted. Tradition in the Church is whatever the Pope is saying today. You must submit to what the Pope and the bishops say today. That’s what Tradition is for them, the famous ‘Living Tradition’, the only ground of our condemnation.
They no longer seek now to prove what they say is consistent with what Pius IX wrote or with what the Council of Trent promulgated. No, all of that is over; it’s outdated, as Cardinal Ratzinger said. It is clear and they could have said so earlier. There was no point in our talking, in our discussing with them. Now is the tyranny of authority, because there are no longer any rules. One can no longer refer to the past.
In a sense things today are becoming clearer. They always give us more reason. We are dealing with people who have a different philosophy to ours, a different way of seeing, who are influenced by all modern subjectivist philosophers. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is evolving. That is a totally Masonic concept. This is really the destruction of the Faith. Fortunately, we continue to lean on Tradition!
Fideliter- Yes, but you are alone against everyone.
Archbishop Lefebvre - Yes, it is a great mystery.
Fideliter - In the last newsletter “Introibo” Father André notes that although they say the New Mass , a dozen bishops provide hope. They are classified as “traditional bishops” by “Episcopal Who's Who.”
Archbishop Lefebvre - Yes, but they are all conciliar. It’s only Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself who have resisted that Council and its applications, whereas at the Council there were 250 of us opposing the errors.
I was recently told to re-read the prophecy of Our Lady of Quito(1), where in the early seventeenth century, the Blessed Virgin Mary gave a revelation to a holy nun about the destruction of morals and the terrible crisis which now afflicts the Church and its clergy(2) announcing to her also that there would be a prelate who would dedicated himself to the restoration of the priesthood. The Blessed Virgin announced that that would happen in the twentieth century. This is a fact. The Good Lord has planned this time in the Church.
Fideliter - You have emphasised that you are convinced that the work you have undertaken is blessed by God, because at several points it could have disappeared.
Archbishop Lefebvre - Yes, that’s right. We have always come under very hard, very difficult attacks. Often people who worked with us, who used to be our friends, have turned against us and have really become enemies. It is very painful, but there is nothing to be done. We realise after some time that those are after us and who are trying to destroy us are sinking, and that we continue, we must believe nonetheless that the line of the Faith and Tradition that we have adopted, that we are following, is imperishable because it is the Church and because God cannot allow his Church to perish.
Fideliter - What can you say to those of the faithful who still hope in the possibility of an agreement with Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre - Our true faithful, those who have understood the problem and who have precisely helped us to continue along the straight and firm path of Tradition and the Faith, were afraid of the approaches I made towards Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute that in Rome we would witness a little bit of loyalty. I cannot be blamed for not having done the maximum. So now too, to those who say to me, “You’ve got to reach an agreement with Rome,” I think I can say that I went even further than I should have.
Fideliter- You answer: you do not have to worry, because we are with Tradition, with all the councils before Vatican II, with everything said by all the popes who preceded it...
Archbishop Lefebvre- Yes, obviously if we were inventing something we would be worried that our invention would not endure. But we’re doing nothing new. A little while ago time I saw a bishop, one of my friends with whom we worked during the council and was in complete agreement with me at that time. And he said: “It is unfortunate that you are in trouble with Rome.”
“How can you, who fought at the Council for the same reasons as me,” I answered him, “how can you now be surprised? We held continual meetings together and with others to try to maintain the line of Tradition in the Council. And now you have abandoned all of that. Is what we were doing wrong?”
“See the results of the Council. Can you show me any that are good, that are positive? Where and in what areas have the Council and the reforms that came from it brought about an extraordinary revival in the Church?”
He did not answer. There is nothing. Everything is negative.
Fideliter - And the charismatics?
Archbishop Lefebvre – That’s more negative still. It’s the devil, because charismatics come to us to ask us to exorcise them. One has to believe that they are possessed by the devil. They call the Spirit. What spirit? There are some people among them who are of good will, without doubt, who are striving to pray, to do adoration, no doubt, but the devil is evil. He draws in with one hand, and he grabs with the other.
We’re not done fighting. When I’m gone my successors will still have to fight.
But God can do anything. On the political level it would have been difficult to predict a year or two ago what is happening right now. No one imagined that the Iron Curtain would be lifted, that Germany would reunify. Now they say that the collapse of the Soviet empire is near.
I received a letter from a Ukrainian bishop who wanted to contact us, to ask us to help edit a catechism because they no longer have anything. He did more than fifteen years in a Soviet prison with some others. A number of them have now been released. He found his diocese in a terrible state, because everything now belongs to the Orthodox Church. They took everything. So they are trying to recover what they can, but they have against them the Vatican, which is poisoned by this business. The return of these bishops and priests who want to revive the Catholic Church in Ukraine is a nuisance to the Vatican, which above all does not want to get into trouble with the Kremlin and the Orthodox church. This Catholic revival in Ukraine is a nuisance to them. This is what the bishop wrote to me: “There really is a mystery for us surrounding the attitude of Rome.”
For us it is not a mystery!
Fideliter - What conclusions can we draw from the Society after twenty years of existence?
Archbishop Lefebvre - The Good Lord wanted Tradition. I am deeply convinced that the Society is the means that God wanted to keep and maintain the Faith, the truth of the Church and what can still be saved in the Church. Thanks also to the bishops around the Superior General of the Society, who fulfil their indispensable role of maintaining the Faith, of preaching the Faith, and of communicate the grace of the priesthood and confirmation, Tradition remains unchanged and a still-fruitful source the divine life.
All this is very comforting and I think we have to thank God and continue to faithfully keep the treasures of the Church, hoping that one day these treasures resume the place they deserve in Rome and they should never have lost.
Notes
(1) Note: extract from the consecrations sermon of 30th June 1988:
Quote:“Just recently, the priest who takes care of the priory of Bogota, Colombia, brought me a book concerning the apparition of Our Lady of "Buon Suceso," - of "Good Success," to whom a large church in Quito, Ecuador, was dedicated. They were received by a nun shortly after the Council of Trent, so you see, quite a few centuries ago. This apparition is thoroughly recognized by Rome and the ecclesiastical authorities; a magnificent church was built for the Blessed Virgin Mary wherein the faithful of Ecuador venerate with great devotion a picture of Our Lady, whose face was made miraculously. The artist was in the process of painting it when he found the face of the Holy Virgin miraculously formed. And Our Lady prophesied for the twentieth century, saying explicitly that during the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth century, errors would become more and more widespread in Holy Church, placing the Church in a catastrophic situation. Morals would become corrupt and the Faith would disappear. It seems impossible not to see it happening today. I excuse myself for continuing this account of the apparition but she speaks of a prelate who will absolutely oppose this wave of apostasy and impiety - saving the priesthood by forming good priests. I do not say that prophecy refers to me. You may draw your own conclusions. I was stupefied when reading these lines but I cannot deny them, since they are recorded and deposited in the archives of this apparition.”
(2) cf. Fideliter No.66, Nov. - Dec. 1988
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre and other Priests in the 'Holy Resistance' - 1981 Declaration |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-17-2020, 01:23 PM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Communiqué Published by Archbishop Lefebvre and Several Other Priests Active in the "Holy Resistance"
28 May 1981
Archbishop Lefebvre, Msgr. Ducaud-Bourget, Rev. Dom Gerard, OSB, Rev. Father Eugene, OFM Cap. Father André, Father Aulagnier (District Superior of the Society of St. Pius X for France), were invited to the Maison Lacordaire, Flavigny, to meet their host, Father Coache. They understand and share the distress of many of the faithful at the "self-destruction" of the Church, which is proceeding ever more rapidly and deeply, and the concern of many traditionalists over the entrenched ambiguity of Rome. They decided to give some encouragement to these troubled souls, to help them remain steadfast in the Faith, to persevere in Tradition without wavering.
For this purpose they make the following Declaration:
1. They remain attached heart and soul to the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman church, to all She has taught and defined as part of Revelation, and to everything which, though not yet defined, has been consistently taught by the Magisterium, especially regarding the Liturgy of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This is all the more necessary as they observe that the so-called progressives, embracing novelties and ecumenical reforms, are already for the most part hardly any different from Protestants and are thus no longer Catholic.
2. They remain attached to the See of Peter and to the Successor of Peter, in spite of the serious criticisms which can be justly made concerning him, especially for his decision to further the work of the Council, which is purely and simply the "self-destruction" of the Church. We must pray that he may be enlightened by the Holy Ghost and return to Tradition, which is eternal, and that in all areas.
3. They make the firm resolution to maintain Tradition at all costs, especially in the Liturgy of the Mass and the Sacraments, sources of supernatural grace and pledges of their salvation. They thus support all institutions and seminaries designed to train true priests to offer the true Sacrifice.
4. They encourage and support all traditional forms of religious life, orders and contemplative congregations, semi-contemplative, and active congregations of fraternities which make the Holy Sacrifice of the immemorial Mass the source of their supernatural life.
5. They hope to see multiplied and developed teaching orders, to give solidly Catholic training to young people, based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the catechisms which derive from it.
Modem catechisms twist the sense of the Faith and lay the foundation for generations of Modernists and atheists. It is better for parents to teach their children themselves than to hand them over to intellectual, spiritual and moral perversion.
In short, the faithful must be aware that we are living in more subtle and dangerous times of persecution against Our Lord Jesus Christ than ever, because, as in the time of Modernism, this persecution takes on misleading appearances and even uses the same Gospel (as for the theology of liberation), invoking the "rights of Man" and "human dignity" and such phrases well known among progressivists, socialists and even Marxists (cf. Pius X's Letter on the Sillon, 1910).
Everything is geared to the total destruction of Christian institutions and of the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, especially His social reign, i.e., His laws and the Ten Commandments.
Only by relying on the eternal tradition of the Faith, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, on the Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, on the Rosary and the Spiritual Exercises[/b], can we hold out against the plague of destruction which is coming over us.
6. They ask the faithful to gather around priests faithful to Rome and to the Successor of Peter. These bulwarks of resistance, by their prayers and spirit of penance, will finally succeed in touching the Hearts of Jesus and Mary and bring about the end of this dreadful and destructive time of trial to souls.
They should guard against being led astray by false messages from heaven, false devotions such as pentecostalism, which is a work of the devil. Our Lord Himself warns us against these seductive movements.
They should commit themselves to Mary, Joseph, the archangels, and angels and to all the elect of heaven. They should invoke their guardian angels. They should unite themselves to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, make frequent acts of adoration, carry out the duties of their state in life, observe the Ten Commandments and practise charity on an individual and social level. In this way they will receive the graces necessary to get them through this wicked world and into heaven.
7. They are in favor of the development of a great Rosary Crusade to storm heaven through the Heart of Our Lady, Mother of the Church, Help of Christians and consolation of the Afflicted; they invite priests and faithful, with this goal in view, to take whatever initiatives their zeal and charity will suggest.
The aforesaid declaration was released to the press on May 28, 1981. It was signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and the above-named priests and sums up the fundamental traditionalist position. Many priests and laity, organizers of centers and groups, other activities, periodicals, etc., were given the opportunity to sign.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: The Psychology of a Liberal Pope |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-17-2020, 01:10 PM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- Replies (1)
|
|
Obviously, the Church will one day judge this council and these popes. How will Paul VI, in particular, fare? Some call him heretic, schismatic, and apostate; others believe themselves to have proved that he could not have acted for the good of the Church, and that therefore he was not in fact pope - the theory held by Sedevacantists. I do not deny that these opinions have some arguments in their favor. Perhaps, you will say, in 30 years secrets will have been revealed, or elements that should have been obvious to contemporary observers will stand out, statements made by this pope in complete contradiction to the traditions of the Church, etc. Perhaps. But I do not believe that such hypotheses are necessary; in fact, I think it would be a mistake to espouse them.
Others think, simplistically, that there were two popes: one, the true pope, imprisoned in the cellars of the Vatican, and the other, an imposter, his double, seated on the throne of Peter, working for the destruction of the Church. Books have been published about the two popes, based on the ‘revelations’ of a possessed person and on supposedly scientific arguments that state, for instance, that the double’s voice is not the same as that of the real Paul VI…!
The real solution seems entirely different to me, much more complex, more difficult, and more painful. It is given us by a friend of Paul VI, Cardinal Danielou. In his Memoirs, published by a member of his family, the cardinal clearly states, “It is clear that Paul VI is a liberal Pope.”
Such is the solution that seems the most historically likely, because this pope was himself a fruit of liberalism. His whole life was permeated with the influence of the men he chose to surround him or to rule him, and they were liberals.
Paul VI did not hide his liberal leanings; at the Council, the men he chose as moderators to replace the presidents appointed by John XXIII, were Cardinal Agagianian, a cardinal of colorless personality from the Curia, and Cardinals Lercaro, Suenens and Dopfner, all three liberals and the pope’s friends. The presidents were sidelined at the head table, and these three liberals directed the conciliar debates. In the same way, Paul VI supported the liberal faction that opposed the tradition of the Church throughout the entire Council. This is a recognized fact. Paul VI repeated – I quoted it to you - the exact words of Lammenais at the end of the Council: “L’Eglise ne demande que la liberte” – the Church only seeks freedom - a doctrine condemned by Gregory XVI and Pius IX.
Paul VI was undeniably very strongly influenced by liberalism. This explains the historic evolution experienced by the Church over the last few decades, and it describes Paul VI’s personal behavior very well. The liberal, as I have told you, is a man who lives in constant contradiction. He states the principles, and does the opposite; he is perpetually incoherent.
Here are a few examples of the thesis-antithesis conundrums that Paul VI loved to present as so many insoluble problems, mirroring his anxious and conflicted mind. The encyclical Ecclesiam suam, (August 6, 1964), provides an illustration:
Quote:If, as We said, the Church realizes what is God’s will in its regard, it will gain for itself a great store of energy, and in addition will conceive the need for pouring out this energy in the service of all men. It will have a clear awareness of a mission received from God, of a message to be spread far and wide. Here lies the source of our evangelical duty, our mandate to teach all nations, and our apostolic endeavor to strive for the eternal salvation of all men. (…) The very nature of the gifts which Christ has given the Church demands that they be extended to others and shared with others. This must be obvious from the words: “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations,” Christ’s final command to His apostles. The word apostle implies a mission from which there is no escaping.
That is the thesis, and the antithesis follows immediately:
Quote:To this internal drive of charity which seeks expression in the external gift of charity, We will apply the word ‘dialogue.’ The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make.
And finally he attempts a synthesis, which only reinforces the antithesis:
Quote:Before we can convert the world - as the very condition of converting the world - we must approach it and speak to it.[1]
Of greater gravity are the words with which Paul VI suppressed Latin in the liturgy after the Council, and they are even more characteristic of his liberal psychology. After restating all the advantages of Latin: a sacred language, an unchanging language, a universal language, he calls, in the name of adaptation, for the “sacrifice” of Latin, admitting at the same time that it will be a great loss for the Church. Here are his very words, reported by Louis Salleron in his book La nouvelle messe [The New Mass] (Nouvelles Editions Latines, 2nd ed., 1976, p. 83)
On March 7, 1965, he said to the faithful gathered in St. Peter’s square
Quote:It is a sacrifice that the Church makes in renouncing Latin, a sacred language, beautiful, expressive, and elegant. The Church sacrifices centuries of tradition and unity of language in the name of an ever-growing desire for universality.
The ‘sacrifice’ of which he spoke became a reality with the Instruction Tres abhinc annos (May 4, 1967) which established the use of the vernacular for reciting the Canon of the Mass aloud.
This ‘sacrifice,’ in Paul VI’s mind, seems to have been final. He explained it once again on November 26, 1969, when he presented the new rite of the Mass:
Quote:The principal language of the Mass will no longer be Latin, but the vernacular. For anyone familiar with the beauty and power of Latin, its aptness for expression of the sacred, it will certainly be a great sacrifice to see it replaced by the vernacular. We are losing the language of centuries of Christianity, we become as intruders, reduced to the profane in the literary domain of expressing the sacred. We lose, too, the greater part of the admirable, incomparable wealth of art and spirituality contained in Gregorian chant. It is with good reason, then, that we experience regret and even distress.
Everything therefore should have dissuaded Paul VI from imposing this ‘sacrifice’ and persuaded him to maintain the use of Latin. On the contrary, deriving a singularly masochistic pleasure from his ‘distress,’ he chose to act against the principles he had just set forth, and decreed the ‘sacrifice’ in the name of promoting understanding of prayer, a specious argument that was only a modernist pretext.
Never has liturgical Latin been an obstacle to the conversion of infidels or to their education as Christians. Quite the opposite: the simple peoples of Africa and Asia loved Gregorian chant and the one sacred language, the sign of their affiliation to Catholicism. And experience shows that where Latin was not imposed by missionaries of the Latin Church, there the seeds of future schism were planted.
Paul VI followed these remarks with this contradictory pronouncement:
Quote:The solution seems banal and prosaic, but it is good, because it is human and apostolic. The understanding of prayer is more precious than the dilapidated silks in which it has been royally clad. More precious is the participation of the people, the people of today who want us to speak clearly, intelligibly, in words that can be translated into their secular tongue. If the noble Latin language cuts us off from children, from youth, from the world of work and business, if it is an opaque screen instead of a transparent crystal, would we fishers of men do well to maintain its exclusive use in the language of prayer and religion?
Alas, what mental confusion. Who prevents me from praying in my own tongue? But liturgical prayer is not private prayer; it is the prayer of the whole Church. Moreover, another lamentable lack of distinction is present: the liturgy is not a teaching addressed to the faithful, but the worship the Christian people address to God. Catechism is one thing, and the liturgy is another. The point is not that we “speak clearly” to the people assembled in the church, but rather that these people may praise God in the most beautiful, most sacred, and most solemn manner possible. “Praying to God with beauty” was St. Pius X’s liturgical maxim. How right he was!
You see, the liberal mind is conflicted and confused, anguished and contradictory. Such a mind was Paul VI’s. Louis Salleron explained it very well when he described Paul VI’s physical countenance, saying “he was two-faced.” Not duplicitous—this word expresses a malicious intent to deceive which was not present in Paul VI. No, he had a double personality, and the contrast between the sides of face expressed this: traditionalist in words, then modernist in action; Catholic in his premises and principles, and then progressive in his conclusions; not condemning what he should have, and then condemning what he ought to have preserved.
This psychological weakness afforded an ideal opportunity for the enemies of the Church. While maintaining a Catholic face (or half-face, if you like) he contradicted tradition without hesitation, he encouraged change, baptized mutation and progress, and followed the lead of the enemies of the Church, who egged him on.
Did not the Izvestia, official newspaper of the Communist Soviet party, demand from Paul VI my condemnation and that of Econe in the name of Vatican II? And the Italian Communist paper L’Unita followed suit after the sermon I gave in Lille on August 29, 1976; furious because of my attack on Communism, they devoted an entire page to their demand.
Quote:“Be aware,” they wrote, addressing Paul VI, “be aware of the danger Lefebvre represents, and continue the magnificent approach initiated through the ecumenism of Vatican II.”
With friends like these, who needs enemies? This is a sad illustration of a rule we have already established: liberalism leads from compromise to treason.
The psychology of a liberal pope is easy enough to imagine, but difficult to bear! Indeed, such a leader—be it Paul VI or John Paul II—puts us in a very delicate position.
In practice, our attitude must base itself on a preliminary distinction, made necessary by the extraordinary circumstances of a pope won over by liberalism. This is the distinction we must make: when the pope says something in keeping with tradition, we follow him; when he opposes the Faith, or encourages opposition of the Faith, or allows something to be done that attacks the Faith, then we cannot follow him. The fundamental reason for this is that the Church, the pope, and the hierarchy must serve the Faith. They do not make the Faith, they must serve it. The Faith cannot be made; it is immutable, and must be transmitted.
This is why papal teachings intended to validate actions opposed to tradition cannot be followed. In following, we would participate in the self-destruction of the Church, in the destruction of our Faith.
It is clear that what is unceasingly demanded of us—complete submission to the pope, complete submission to the Council, acceptance of the entire liturgical reform—is in opposition to tradition, in the sense that the pope, the Council and the reforms lead us far from tradition, as the facts show more overwhelmingly every year. Therefore, to demand these things is to require us to participate in the downfall of the Faith. Impossible! The martyrs died to defend the Faith; we have the example of Christians imprisoned, tortured, sent to concentration camps for the Faith. One grain of incense offered to an idol, and their lives would have been safe. I was advised once, “Sign, sign saying you accept everything, and then you can continue as before!” No! One does not play games with the Faith.
Footnote
1. English translation taken from the Vatican’s website
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 'The Practice of the Virtue of Religion |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-17-2020, 12:09 PM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Practice of the Virtue of Religion—The Essential Link between a Holy Life and a Life of Prayer
Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth
If God is sanctity itself, if we sing of Our Lord that He alone is holy, “Tu solus sanctus,” it is that God is the source of all sanctity, and that it is inasmuch as we are united with God and Our Lord that we will be saints. But how can this union with God be concretely realized? Under the influence of the grace of the Holy Ghost. This union has a name: prayer—oratio.
In studying deeply both the nature of prayer and its extension in our human and Christian existence, we become convinced that the profound life of the created spirit must be one of continual prayer. Every angelic or human spirit is ordered to God by its spiritual nature, by its intellect and will, and gratuitously elevated by grace to enter and participate in the eternal beatitude of the Holy Trinity.Therefore every spirit is fundamentally religious, and its religious life manifests itself in prayer: vocal, mental and spiritual.
Vocal prayer, which includes all liturgical prayer, instituted by God Himself and by God Incarnate and fashioned by the Holy Ghost, especially in the Roman Liturgy, is the most sublime source and expression of mental and spiritual prayer. The place of this prayer in the life of the priest is considerable. To neglect it, to limit it, to render it superficial, is to ruin the essential prayer, the spiritual prayer, to which vocal prayer is ordered by the Holy Ghost.
It is good to read what spiritual authors such as St. Louis-Marie de Montfort in his “Prière embrasée” (Oeuvres compl., p. 673), or Father Emmanuel in his Traité du ministère ecclésiastique, or Abbot Marmion in Christ, Ideal of the Monk (Chapter XIII, “Monastic Prayer”) think on this subject. The chapter by Abbot Marmion is remarkable, and would sanctify all priests if his counsels were put into practice. Finally, Dom Chautard in The Soul of the Apostolate (“Prayer: The Indispensable Element of the Interior Life”).
All the saints practiced mental prayer, which is at the same time an effect and a cause of sanctity. Many have written on this subject, in particular St. Teresa of Avila and St. Francis de Sales. This they did because they had a very elevated notion of this life of prayer. Penetrating both the will and the heart, it enables us to attain the end for which God has created and redeemed us: namely, to adore Him in a total offering of ourselves, following the example of Our Lord coming into this world and saying to His Father: “Ecce venio ut faciam voluntatem tuam—I come...to do Thy will...” (Heb. 10:7).
The conception that reduces prayer to vocal prayer or mental prayer is a disastrous one. For prayer should involve all our being, like the prayer of the angels and of the elect in heaven. The petitions of the Pater Noster cannot be separated. The first three petitions are indissolubly linked. Likewise, the First Commandment of God cannot be separated from the other Commandments.
“Ignem veni mittere in terram et quid volo nisi ut accendatur—I have come to cast fire on the earth, and what will I but that it be kindled” (Lk. 12:49). The fire is the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Charity which fills the Holy Trinity and which created spiritual beings to set them afire with this charity.
This burning fire is the prayer of every soul adoring his Creator and Redeemer, surrendering itself to the holy Will, following Jesus Crucified, who offered His life in a great transport of charity toward His Father and to save souls.
Whence the “oportet semper orare—we must always pray” (Lk. 18:1). If that prayer ended, that would signify that the Holy Ghost had abandoned us!
May we be able to live this ardent prayer of the will and of the heart in a constant manner even in our absorbing apostolic activities, which should never absorb us to the point of hindering our wills and our hearts from belonging to God! May our apostolate actually nourish and promote our self-offering to God.
This profound attitude of our soul, in such great conformity both with its nature and with grace, will foster in it a desire for silence and contemplation which will be fulfilled in the common and private practices of piety. Our spiritual life will find there its unity, its constancy, and its truly Christian peace.
These brief considerations open horizons on the accomplishment of the divine will in our daily lives. It is the introduction of this program for our sanctification which must be the thread of our priestly life. “Elegit nos in Ipso, ante constitutionem mundi, ut essemus sancti—He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy” (Eph. 1:4).
The young seminarian entering the seminary should strive to penetrate with all his soul this life of prayer, which unreservedly hands him over to Our Lord and to the Holy Trinity, placing his mind in subjection to Revelation, which enlightens for us the Mysterium Christi, by the virtue of faith and obedience: “Redigere omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi—bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (II Cor. 10:5); placing his will and his entire soul under the impetus of the charity of the Holy Ghost in imitation of Jesus Christ, in obedience to the law of charity expressed by the Ten Commandments in imitation of Jesus Christ, in obedience to the law of charity expressed by the Ten Commandments and especially by the First Commandment as well as by Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5 through 7). Thus, his entire soul will be animated with the virtue of religion, and with virtue both natural and supernatural, in union with the Sacrifice of Our Lord renewed and continued on the altar. Thus will he be best fitted to ascend the degrees of holiness, the goal desired by God the Creator and Redeemer, expressed in the first three petitions of the Our Father.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre: 1976 Sermon - Destroyers of the Church are Doing the Work of Freemasonry |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-17-2020, 11:12 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Angelus - July 2013
The Name Written on Her Heart
Sermon by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, August 22, 1976
Dear Brethren,
The feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, whose solemnity we celebrate today, is a comparatively new feast and an example of what the Church can do and has done in relatively recent times to adapt the spirit and the riches of the Church to the present day. If any feast reminds us of the truths we need, of truths that when meditating we desire to apply to our souls, that of the Immaculate Heart of Mary certainly does.
This feast clearly has a special link to the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima, and it was Pius XII who wished that we honor the Immaculate Heart of Mary on the octave day of the Assumption.
Ah, yes, since the 17th century devotion to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary has existed. We just celebrated this week the feast of St. John Eudes, who founded congregations under the patronage of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary. But if our Holy Father Pius XII decided to honor in a special way the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it was because our times had need of the devotion.
In these times of hardship, in these times where Christians are deprived of what they formerly had, we need the manifestation of the charity of Our Lord, which was so clearly seen during other Christian centuries. One saw religious houses everywhere. Throughout Christendom monasteries, convents, and hospitals were thickly sown. So many religious houses peopled our villages, our countryside, and our cities, that we had the impression—I imagine that the people who lived in those times had the impression—to be entirely surrounded by the love of our Lord Jesus Christ. For His love was made manifest, as you might say, on every street corner. There were Calvaries; there were images of Our Lady; there were hospitals run by religious; there were refuges for the poor, pilgrims, and those in suffering. Everywhere the charity of Our Lord was manifest.
But in our times, how harsh our world has become! We no longer find this charity of Our Lord in our cities or our countryside. Oh, there are still, of course, souls devoted to Our Lord, but how many compared to the total population? And how much work there remains to do in those countries that do not yet know of Our Lord’s charity, enormous lands like China, Africa, and many others that are still far from this charity!
And so it seems to me that we need the Blessed Virgin Mary in our times. We need the Blessed Virgin to help us keep the faith, to feel the warmth of Our Lord’s love for us. We no longer see His love with our eyes, and as we see it less and less, we need to feel that Our Lady is near us. And I think that is why Our Lady asked at Fatima that we pray to her Immaculate Heart. We need the divine love which fills the Heart of the Blessed Virgin.
And we also need her Immaculate Heart: immaculate, that is without stain, without sin. God knows that we no longer have around us the example of lives entirely devoted to our Lord Jesus Christ, who carry out the law of Our Lord, His law of love, for the commandments of God are contained in love of God and love of neighbor.
But today, you are witnesses of what goes on in our society, where we murder children, where people commit suicide. Did you know that here in Switzerland, there are more suicides than fatalities due to car accidents? A newspaper recently reported that there were 1800 suicides last year, but only 1600 deaths due to car accidents: 1800 suicides! And mostly of young people. What does that mean? It means that these poor souls no longer felt the love of Our Lord around them; they were disgusted by the life that surrounded them, to the point that they committed suicide. And if what happens in a large number of other countries was made public, we would be horrified.
When one thinks about divorce! So many abandoned children who are torn between father and mother. We live painful lives in a harsh society, where charity is no longer practiced.
Blessed Virgin Mary as Mother
I experienced this personally when I was sent to the African nations, where I worked for 30 years. What struck me the most was the hatred one sensed there. The people were full of hate: one village hated another, one family hated another. The result of this hatred was suicide, poisonings and murders. The love of our Lord Jesus Christ did not reign.
We do not know how fortunate we are to have our Lord Jesus Christ as our Father and the Blessed Virgin Mary as our Mother. From these examples we must draw our love for God and for our models. For if the Blessed Virgin Mary had a most loving heart, her love was all for our Lord Jesus Christ and for all those “attached” to Him, and to lead all souls to our Lord Jesus Christ, to her Son Jesus. She lived for this love.
And because she loved Our Lord she was never able to offend Him; she simply couldn’t. She was conceived immaculate, born immaculate, and she remains immaculate all her life. She is then for us a model of purity of heart, of obedience to the law of our Lord Jesus Christ.
And because she loved Our Lord, she wanted to suffer with Him and share His sufferings. Sharing suffering is a sign of love. She saw her Son Jesus suffer and she wished to suffer with Him. When the heart of Jesus was pierced, so was hers, the heart of Mary! These two pierced hearts lived in unity for the glory of God, for the reign of God, for the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. They fought for that alone.
And for this reason we too must be ready to suffer for the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. He no longer reigns in our societies, nor in our families, nor in our own selves. Yet we need His reign. It is the only reason for the existence of our souls, our bodies, of humanity, and this earth and all of God’s creation: that Jesus Christ may reign; that He may give to souls His life, His salvation, His charity, His glory.
It is because we are aware of what has been happening in the Church for over 15 years—a true revolution has occurred, attacking the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, clearly and evidently intending to destroy His reign—that our eyes were opened and that we were able to see this. Our Lord Jesus Christ’s law is no longer followed, and, unfortunately, those who should teach us to follow His law encourage us on the contrary to disobey it.
For seeking the secularization of the state brings about the destruction of Christ’s Kingship. When doubt is cast on the reality of the sanctity of marriage and its laws, the love of our Lord Jesus Christ in our homes is destroyed.
When we fail to speak, or fail to speak loudly and openly against abortion, we do not build Christ’s reign.
Devotion to Christ the King
When devotion to Christ the King is torn down, the reign of Christ in souls is destroyed.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, dear brethren, is nothing other than the proclamation of the reign of Christ the King.
How did our Lord Jesus Christ reign? Regnavit a ligno Crucis. He reigned by the wood of the Cross. He defeated the devil and defeated sin with the wood of the Cross. So the renewal on the altar of the Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord at Calvary is a declaration of the royalty of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a declaration of His divinity.
And somehow, by destroying the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, one destroys the affirmation of the Kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is why adoration of the Blessed Sacrament has diminished so much in our times. Rather let us say that sacrileges have grown innumerably since the Council. It must be said. It is clear and obvious.
Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist has been sent away from the altar. He is no longer adored. People do not genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament any more. But recognizing the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ means recognizing that He is God. It means recognizing that He is our King. And therefore we must express this love of our Lord Jesus Christ, recognize the existence of His divinity.
For proof I need only refer to something that just occurred and is publicly known in the United States. At the Eucharistic Congress in Philadelphia, was a procession with the Blessed Sacrament held? No! There was no procession with the Blessed Sacrament, just like four years ago at the Eucharistic Congress in Melbourne, where I was present.
Why no procession with the Blessed Sacrament? Because they wanted to make the Eucharistic Congress an ecumenical congress.Ecumenical, that means bringing together Protestants and Jews, people who deny the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, who are opposed to His reign.
How can we pray with people who are opposed to our faith, who reject our faith?
The condition set by the non-Catholics invited was, “We will be happy to participate in the Eucharistic Congress as long as there is no procession with the Blessed Sacrament.” In other words, as long as no homage is paid to the One who is our King and our Father, our Creator and our Redeemer, the One who shed His blood for us. People no longer want to honor Him. And this condition was accepted: In order to have Protestants and Jews at the Congress, no procession with the Blessed Sacrament was held.
On top of that, a sort of concelebration was held with the Protestant ministers, and it was a Protestant minister who presided over the event!
All of this cries out to heaven for vengeance! Our Lord is no longer honored, our Lord is no longer King. He is insulted by events like these.
And if one day Communist armies take over our countries, well, we will have richly deserved it for the sacrileges committed that we allowed, that we did not put a stop to, for the honor denied to our Lord Jesus Christ. If we refuse our Lord Jesus Christ as our King, we will have the devil for king. He will come and then we will see what liberty is... Those who desired liberty wanted a liberty that would free man from the commandments of God and of the Church.
Liberation! They wanted to free themselves from our Lord… Another prince will come to teach us about liberty!
And so we who are fortunate enough to understand these things, who are fortunate enough to believe in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His Kingship, we must make manifest, we must proclaim His Kingship in our families and wherever we are. We must join forces with those groups of Christians who still believe in the divinity of Christ and in His Kingship and who have love in their hearts, the love that the Blessed Virgin Mary had for her Son Jesus.
1789 in the Church
And may those who share that love join forces and hold fast, without faltering. Those Christians are the Church. They are the ones, not those who tear down the reign of our Lord. This fact must be proclaimed!1
Cardinal Suenens said: “The Council was 1789 in the Church.” I didn’t make up this definition. Yes, I believe he was right: it was 1789 in the Church. He rejoiced at it; we deplore it. For 1789 in the Church means the reign of the goddess Reason, worshipped by our ancestors of 1789, who worshipped the goddess Reason, who led clergy and religious to the scaffold, who pillaged our cathedrals, destroyed our churches, violated our houses of worship.
And is the revolution we are witnessing now not worse than that of 1789?
If we review what has happened since the Council in our churches, our homes, our schools, our universities, our seminaries, our religious congregations, the result is worse than in 1789.
For at least in 1789 the monks and nuns climbed the scaffold and spilled their blood for our Lord Jesus Christ, and I think that you are ready to give your blood for our Lord Jesus Christ.
But today, how shameful it is to see these priests who have abandoned their priesthood, and to see how every month still so many priests send to Rome a request for permission to abandon the vow they made to serve our Lord Jesus Christ so that they can get married. And a mere three weeks later they receive permission to marry.
Is that not worse? Would it not be better for these priests to climb the scaffold, declaring their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, instead of abandoning Him?
What has happened since the Council is worse than what happened in the Revolution. It is better to have enemies openly declaring war on the Church and on our Lord Jesus Christ. But that those who ought to honor our Lord Jesus Christ, who ought to adore Him, who ought to make their faith in Him known, that these should teach us to commit sacrilege, to abandon Our Lord, to vilify Him in a way—that, we cannot accept!
We are the Catholic Church. They have separated themselves from the Catholic Church.2 We are not schismatic. We long for the reign of our Lord. We want His Kingship proclaimed. We are ready to follow! If our pastors everywhere said, “We want one God alone, our Lord Jesus Christ. We have only one King, our Lord Jesus Christ,” then we would follow them!
But we cannot allow, for instance, the cross to disappear from our altars; we will not allow the cross to disappear from our churches. That we must maintain. We must be firm on these points.
And it is because I proclaim all of this that I am called disobedient, that I will soon be called schismatic. But not at all! I am neither disobedient nor schismatic because I obey the Church and our Lord Jesus Christ.
“You disobey the pope.”I disobey the pope insofar as the pope identifies with the revolution that took place at the Council and after the Council.
For this revolution is the Revolution of 1789, and I cannot obey the Revolution of 1789 in the Church. I cannot obey the goddess of Reason; I will not bow down to the goddess of Reason.
And that is what they want us to do. They want us to close this seminary so that all together we may adore the goddess of Reason, Man, and the cult of Man.
No. Never! We will not accept. We will obey God, submit ourselves to our Lord Jesus Christ. We will submit ourselves to the extent that those who must transmit to us our Faith submit themselves to the Faith as well. They have no right to sell off the Faith: it is not theirs. The Faith belongs to God, it belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ. And the pope and the bishops exist to transmit it.
Insofar as they transmit it, we fall to our knees, we obey; we are ready to obey immediately.
Insofar as they destroy our faith, we no longer obey. We cannot allow our faith to be destroyed.
Our faith is attached to our hearts until we die. That is what we must say and what we must proclaim.
So we are not disobedient; we are obedient to our Lord Jesus Christ. That is what the Church has always asked of the faithful.
And when we are told, “You are judgmental; you judge the pope, you judge the bishops,” it is not we who judge the bishops, but our Faith, our Tradition, our pocket catechism!
A five-year-old child can correct his bishop. If a bishop were to tell a child, “You have been taught that the Blessed Trinity has three Persons, but that is not true,” the child could refer to his catechism and say, “My catechism teaches me that there are three Persons in the Blessed Trinity. You are wrong, and I am right.”
The child would be right. He would be right because he has all of Tradition on his side, all of the Faith on his side.
And that is what we have, nothing else. We say, “Tradition condemns you; Tradition condemns what you are currently doing.”
We Must Stand Firm
We are with two thousand years of the Church, not with twelve years of a new Church, a conciliar Church, as we were told when Msgr. Benelli asked us to submit ourselves to the “conciliar Church.” I do not know this Conciliar Church; I only know the Catholic Church.
So we must stand firm on our positions. For our Faith, we must accept everything, all the snubs, the scorn, excommunication, blows, persecution. Tomorrow, perhaps, the civil authorities may persecute us as well; that too may come.
Why? Because those who are currently destroying the Church are doing the work of Freemasonry. Freemasonry is in control everywhere.
So if Freemasonry realizes that we are a force that may threaten their plans, governments will persecute us.
Then we will return to the catacombs; we will go anywhere, but we will continue to believe; we will not abandon our Faith. We will be persecuted, but many others were persecuted before us for their Faith. We will not be the first. But we will at least honor Our Lord, be faithful to Him, not abandon Him, not betray Him. That is what we must do.
We must therefore be strong and ask the most blessed Virgin Mary on this day that we, like her, may have only one love in our hearts: that of our Lord Jesus Christ; only one name written on our hearts: that of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He is God! He is the Redeemer. He is the Eternal Priest. He is King of all and He is King in heaven. He is alone King in heaven. There is no other king than our Lord Jesus Christ in heaven. He is the joy of the elect, of the angels, of His Blessed Mother, of St. Joseph.
And we too wish to partake of this honor, this glory, this love of our Lord Jesus Christ. We know Him alone and we wish to know Him alone.
In the name of the Father…
Notes
1 The year before delivering this sermon, Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended a divinis and commanded to shut down his seminary and the SSPX. These Roman punishments gave the appearance of placing the SSPX outside of the Church’s legal framework, and this appearance troubled some consciences, making them think that fidelity to Tradition was infidelity to the Church. Thus, the Archbishop emphasizes here that, in fact, those who destroy the Church cannot properly be said to belong to her, while those who are faithful to Tradition do properly belong to her. He is speaking of belonging to the Church in a specific sense, i.e. by sharing her ideals and mission. He is clearly not speaking of belonging to the Church through baptism or by being part of its visible hierarchy, as such a sense would falsify his statement. Such verbal ambiguity is part and parcel of the rhetorical context of a sermon, and is in fact needed to emphasize a key point, as the Archbishop does here.
2 In common speech, we do not say that a traitor or a spy within an army belongs to that army, because his intentions are completely contrary to those of the moral body of which he is a part. Similarly here, although certain Modernists are baptized Catholics and really are part of the visible hierarchy, yet they have separated themselves from the Church’s spirit and ideals, and in that sense do not belong to her. Such expressions, as Fr. Gleize points out, take the part for the whole. It is not just those who have the spirit of the Church (part) that make up the Catholic Church (whole), but it can be said in a certain sense that only those who have the spirit of the Church belong to the Church, a point the Archbishop wishes to emphasize here.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: kelly_craft_gettyy_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Getty_Images/kelly_craft_gettyy_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
![[Image: Photos_of_human_hair_growing_from_the_sc...odents.png]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/Photos_of_human_hair_growing_from_the_scalps_of_aborted_children_grafted_onto_rodents.png)
![[Image: st._januarius_fail_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg]](https://assets.lifesitenews.com/images/made/images/remote/https_www.lifesitenews.com/images/local/st._januarius_fail_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
![[Image: GettyImages-1216677104.jpg]](https://cdn.summit.news/2020/12/GettyImages-1216677104.jpg)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinim...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2F83%2F40%2F0a%2F83400a7096a7cb0a366c89f1e5bf78e5.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: 2jS7JL_0NcCU79G00?type=thumbnail_512x288]](https://img.particlenews.com/img/id/2jS7JL_0NcCU79G00?type=thumbnail_512x288)
