| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 338 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 335 Guest(s)
Bing, Facebook, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Canadian church goes up i...
Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
Last Post: Stone
1 hour ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 10
|
Please Pray for Bishop Ti...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:33 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 292
|
Livestream: Twentieth Sun...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:28 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 69
|
Livestream: First Saturda...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:26 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 77
|
Livestream: Feast of St. ...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:23 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 71
|
Thursday Night Holy Hour ...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
10-02-2024, 08:28 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 301
|
October 2nd – The Holy Gu...
Forum: October
Last Post: Stone
10-02-2024, 06:37 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 3,020
|
LFSPN - 'The Avignon Papa...
Forum: LFSPN
Last Post: Stone
10-02-2024, 06:16 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 144
|
Fr. Ruiz: Recommended art...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
10-01-2024, 04:31 AM
» Replies: 70
» Views: 109,102
|
The Catholic Trumpet: ✝PR...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
10-01-2024, 03:39 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 442
|
|
|
| November 30th |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 09:55 AM - Forum: November
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Saint Andrew
Apostle
(† First century)
Patron of fishermen, Russia and Scotland
Saint Andrew was one of the fishermen of Bethsaida, and was the brother of Saint Peter. He became a disciple of Saint John the Baptist. When called himself by Christ on the banks of the Jordan, his first thought was to go in search of his brother, and he said to Peter, We have found the Messiah! and brought him to Jesus.
It was Saint Andrew who, when Christ wished to feed the five thousand in the desert, pointed out a little lad with five loaves and a few fishes. After Pentecost, Saint Andrew went forth upon his mission to plant the Faith in Scythia and Greece and, at the end of years of toil, to win a martyr's crown at Patrae in Achaia. When Saint Andrew first caught sight of the gibbet on which he was to die, he greeted the precious wood with joy. O good cross! he cried, made beautiful by the limbs of Christ, so long desired, now so happily found! Receive me into thy arms and present me to my Master, that He who redeemed me through thee may now accept me from thee! After suffering a cruel scourging he was left, bound by cords, to die upon this diagonal cross. For two whole days the martyr remained hanging on it, alive, preaching with outstretched arms from this chair of truth, to all who came near, and entreating them not to hinder his passion.
|
|
|
| November 29th |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 09:41 AM - Forum: November
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Saturninus
Bishop and Martyr
(†ca. 70 A.D.)
Saint Saturninus was a contemporary and a disciple of Our Lord Jesus Christ; he came to Palestine from Greece, attracted by the reputation of Saint John the Baptist, which had echoed even to the northern Mediterranean region. He then followed our Saviour, heard His teaching, and was a witness to many of His miracles. He was present in the Cenacle when the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost upon the Mother of Christ, the Apostles and Disciples assembled in the number of 120. (Acts of the Apostles 1:15) He departed to teach Christianity under Saint Peter's authority, evangelizing the lands east of Palestine, and going as far as the region of the Persians and Medes and their neighboring provinces. He cured the sick, the lepers, and the paralytics and delivered souls from the demons; and before he left, he gave written instructions to the new Christians concerning what they should believe and practice.
When Saint Saturninus went with Saint Peter to Rome, the Apostle was inspired to send out a number of fervent evangelists to the West, to dissipate by the light of Christ the darkness in which those regions were still plunged. Saturninus was directed to go to what is now southern France, to Toulouse in particular. Saint Peter consecrated him a bishop, that he might form and ordain native priests for the future Christian churches of Gaul. He was given for his companion Papulus, later to become Saint Papulus the Martyr.
The two companions acquired at Nimes an ardent assistant in the person of Honestus. At Carcassonne, when the three announced Christ they were thrown into a prison, where they suffered from hunger; but an Angel was sent by the Lord to deliver them, and they continued on their way to Toulouse, preaching the doctrine and the name of Christ publicly. At this large and opulent city, where idolatry was entrenched, the idols became mute when the missionaries arrived. This caused great astonishment, and the cause of the silence was sought. Saint Saturninus in the meantime was working miracles which produced a strong impression on the witnesses; among them, the cure of a woman with advanced leprosy. The sign of the cross which he made over crowds often cured many sick persons at the same time, and he then baptized those who showed themselves ready for the sacrament. For a time he left his two disciples there and continued on elsewhere, preaching in the cities of what are now Auch and Eauze. A Spaniard heard of him and crossed the Pyrenees to hear him; this man, by the name of Paternus, advanced so rapidly on the paths of virtue that Saint Saturninus ordained him and then established him bishop of Eauze. He himself returned to Toulouse and sent Honestus to Spain to preach. When the latter returned to ask him to come with him to Spain, he left his disciple Papulus in charge for a time at Toulouse.
At Pampeluna his preaching brought thousands to the truth, delivering these former idolaters from the heavy yoke of the ancient enemy. While he continued his apostolic labors elsewhere, in Toulouse a persecution broke out against Papulus, and the faithful Christian obtained the crown of martyrdom by a violent death. At once Saint Saturnin returned to Toulouse, when he learned of it.
The idols again became mute. One day a great multitude was gathered near a pagan altar, where a bull stood ready for the sacrifice. A man in the crowd pointed out Saturninus, who was passing by, as the cause of the silence. There is the one who preaches everywhere that our temples must be torn down, and who dares to call our gods devils! It is his presence that imposes silence on our oracles! He was chained and dragged to the summit of the capitol, situated on a high hill, and commanded to offer sacrifice to the idols and cease to preach Jesus Christ. An Angel appeared to him to fortify him, and the terrible flagellation he endured could not alter his firmness. I know only one God, the only true one; to Him alone I will offer sacrifice on the altar of my heart... How can I fear gods who you yourselves say are afraid of me? He was tied by a rope to the bull, which was driven down the stairs leading to the capitol. His skull was broken, and the Saint entered into the beatitude of the unceasing vision of God. His body was taken up and buried by two devout young women. Tradition conserved the memory of the place of his burial, where later a church was built
|
|
|
|
| November 28th |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 09:30 AM - Forum: November
- Replies (1)
|
|
Saint Catherine Labouré
Virgin, Visionary, Received the Miraculous Medal
(1806-1876)
Saint Catherine Zoé Labouré was born in a small village of France in 1806, the daughter of a well-to-do farmer who had at one time wanted to become a priest, and his very Christian wife. Catherine, the ninth of the eleven living children, lost her mother when she was only nine years old and had to abandon school to go to live with an aunt, accompanied by her younger sister. Two years later she was recalled to take charge of the household, because the older children had all left, one to become a Sister of Saint Vincent de Paul, the others to marry or seek a living elsewhere.
She made a vow of virginity when still very young, desiring to imitate the Holy Virgin, to whom she had confided herself when her mother died. She longed to see Her, and she prayed, in her simplicity, for that grace. She spent as many hours as possible in the Chapel of the Virgin in the village church, without, however, neglecting the work of the household. She talked to Our Lady as to a veritable mother, and indeed the Mother of Christ and ours would prove Herself to be such. Catherine wished to become a nun, without having opted for any particular community; but one day she saw a venerable priest in a dream, saying Mass in her little village church. He turned to her afterwards and made a sign for her to come forward, but in her dream she retreated, walking backwards, unable to take her gaze from his face. He said to her: Now you flee me, but later you will be happy to come to me; God has plans for you. The dream was realized and, as a postulant in the Community of Saint Vincent de Paul, she assisted at the translation of his relics to a nearby church of Paris. She had indeed recognized his picture one day in one of the convents of the Sisters of Charity, and obtained her father's consent to enter that Congregation when her younger sister was old enough to replace her at home.
Catherine's interior life was alimented by the visions she frequently had of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, where once she saw Him as Christ the King. And the designs of God for this humble novice began to be fulfilled, after Our Lady appeared to her in July of 1830, and confided to her the mission of having a Medal struck according to the living picture she saw one night, when a little Angel led her to the convent Chapel, and there she knelt at the Virgin's feet to hear the words which would be the motivating force of her forty-six years of religious life.
Once more — insofar as we know — she would see the Blessed Mother, on November 27th of the same year, when one afternoon while at prayer with her Sisters, she beheld Her to one side of the chapel, Her feet poised on a globe, on which was prostrate a greenish serpent; the hands of the Virgin were holding a golden globe at the level of the heart, as though offering it to God, said Catherine later, in an attitude of supplication, Her eyes sometimes raised to heaven, sometimes looking down at the earth, and Her lips murmuring a prayer for the entire world. The face of the Virgin was of incomparable, indescribable beauty, with a pleading expression which plunged the Sister into ravishment, while she listened to Her prayers. The Immaculate Virgin, after having offered to God Her Compassion with the suffering Christ, prayed for all men and for each one in particular; she prayed for this poor world, that God might take pity on its ignorance, its weakness and faults, and that by pardoning He would hold back the arm of Divine Justice, raised to strike. She prayed the Lord to give peace to the universe.
For many years Catherine kept her secrets from all save her confessor, Father Aladel, priest of the Mission of Saint Vincent, who, wanting to be able to continue with his penitent, saw to it that she was not sent far from Paris, after he had fulfilled the first mission of having the Medal struck. He died, however, before having the statue made according to this second vision, as Our Lady desired. Catherine suffered much from her inability to accomplish the second part of her mission. When she finally confided this second desire of Our Lady to her Sister Superior, a statue of Our Lady, Queen of the World and Mediatrix of all Graces, was made for two Chapels of the nuns.
Saint Catherine died in 1876, after spending her life in the domestic and agricultural duties associated with the kitchen and garden, and in general caring for the elderly of the Hospice of Enghien at Reuilly, only about three miles southeast of Paris. Among her writings recounting the apparitions, we read: Oh, how beautiful it will be to hear it said: Mary is Queen of the universe. That will be a time of peace, joy and happiness which will be long... She will be borne like a banner and will make a tour of the world. The Virgin foretold that this time would come only after the entire world will be in sadness... Afterwards, peace.
|
|
|
|
| November 27th |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 09:17 AM - Forum: November
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Miraculous Medal
(1830)
The Miraculous Medal comes directly from the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and our Mother; it is a gift from heaven which has never ceased to effect marvels of grace throughout the entire world. This medal is a very simple and very efficacious means to benefit from the protection of Mary in all our necessities, both spiritual and temporal.
On November 27, 1830, in a residence of the Daughters of Charity, at the Chapel of the Rue du Bac in Paris, the Most Blessed Virgin appeared to Saint Catherine Labouré (1806-1876) for the second time. On this day the Queen of Heaven was seen with a globe under Her feet and holding in Her hands, at the level of the heart, another smaller globe, which She seemed to be offering to Our Lord in a gesture of supplication. Suddenly, Her fingers were covered with rings and beautiful jewels; the rays from these streamed in all directions...
The Blessed Virgin looked down on the humble novice who was contemplating Her. Behold, She said, the symbol of the graces that I bestow on those who ask Me for them. The jewels which remain in the shadows symbolize the graces that one forgets to ask Me for, the Virgin continued. And Catherine Labouré wrote later, She made me understand how generous She is towards persons who pray to Her, how many graces She grants those who ask Her for them, and what joy She has to bestow them! Then there formed around the Mother of God an oval background on which was written in gold letters:
O Mary, conceived without sin,
pray for us who have recourse to Thee.
In a gesture which invited recourse and confidence, the hands of Mary descended and were extended as we see them represented on the medal.
Sister Catherine Labouré beheld this vision with happiness. A voice said to her: Have a medal struck on this model; the persons who will wear it will receive great graces, especially if they wear it around the neck. These graces will be abundant for those who wear it with confidence. The picture seemed to turn around, and Sister Catherine saw, on its reverse side, the letter M surmounted by a little cross, and below it the holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the first surrounded by a crown of thorns, and the second transfixed by a sword. Twelve stars surrounded the monogram of Mary and the two holy Hearts.
Sister Catherine faithfully accomplished the mission Heaven had entrusted to her. In 1832 the medal was struck and immediately underwent a extraordinary diffusion throughout the world, accompanied by unceasing prodigies of cures, protection and conversion. Thus it came to be known as the Miraculous Medal. Let us wear this medal of the Most Blessed Virgin with respect, and often repeat with confidence and love, the invocation by which Our Heavenly Mother desires that we implore favors: O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee.
* * *
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.fU06ZcaTRB5lgxa5OrngNAHaF7%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=39652e2a6905bd220d67c79a22a924ba9819bd73fc80dc4552ef9e01bd689eb1&ipo=images)
Saint Maximus
Bishop of Riez
(† 460)
Saint Maximus, from his youth as the son of a noble Christian family, manifested a firm predilection for virtue. His austerities, undertaken to conserve his virtue at all costs, were so constant and determined that it seemed he merited the crown of martyrdom even without a tyrant to persecute him. For seven years, after he made a private vow of virginity at the age of eighteen and then entered into religion, he was a disciple of Saint Honoratus, Abbot of the famous monastery on the island of Lerins; and in the year 426 he succeeded in that office his master, who had been chosen bishop of Arles.
For seven years, he governed this monastery, and under his guidance, solid piety and penance flourished as well as excellent studies, which he established and directed himself. The demon, irritated, under various disguises persecuted him without respite, but the holy Abbot put him to flight by the sign of the Cross, our salvation. Saint Maximus was remarkable not only for the spirit of recollection, fervor, and piety familiar to him from childhood, but still more for the gentleness and kindliness with which he governed the fervent monks of this monastery. At that time it contained a very large number of them. Exhibiting in his own person an example of the most sterling virtues, his exhortations could not fail to prove all-persuasive; loving all his religious, whom it was his delight to consider as composing one single family, he established among them the sweet concord, union, and holy emulation in virtue which render the exercise of authority virtually unnecessary, and make holy submission a pleasure.
The clergy and people of Antibes near Lerins, then those of Frejus, moved by such a shining example, elected Maximus for their bishop, but he refused this dignity verbally on the first occasion, and on the second took flight in a boat and then into a forest, where he prayed for three days and nights that the Lord would change the dispositions of the people of Frejus. Their emissaries did not succeed in finding him, and proceeded to another election. He fled again after Saint Hilary joined his approbation to the election of the clergy and people of the city of Riez in the French Alps, then large and heavily populated. This time he was found, and was compelled to accept the see of Riez, his native diocese.
When one day a church was to be built on a hilltop and it was necessary to transport heavy columns to the elevated site, the oxen refused to move. The bishop was absent that day, although he had often come to encourage all concerned. The people attached two more animals to the yoke, but still none of them moved. The bishop was advised, and when he arrived told them he saw a demon standing before the oxen to prevent their advance. He put the enemy to flight once more with the sign of the Cross, and himself detached the two animals who had been requisitioned; and the first two, with his blessing, had no difficulty in arriving at the hilltop.
In the see of Riez Saint Maximus practiced virtue in all gentleness until he died in 460, regretted as the best of fathers.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre Conference - Infiltration of Modernism into the Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 09:13 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
THE INFILTRATION OF MODERNISM IN THE CHURCH
The following conference was given by Archbishop Lefebvre at Montreal, Canada in 1982. It demonstrates by personal experience the tragic corruption of modernism right from the time of Pope Pius XI. The Archbishop describes the extraordinary influence of Monsignor Annibale Bugnini in the framing of the New Mass and how his unprecedented daring brought about the "approval" of this protestantized liturgy. This account of his personal experiences is the very clear demonstration of why Archbishop Lefebvre had to disobey so as to not participate in the self-destruction of the Church. We present it to our readers to allow them to share a more personal viewpoint of the Archbishop's battle for the Church and for the Faith.
BRIEF HISTORY
I'm happy to remark that every where in the world, everywhere in the Catholic world, courageous people are uniting together around priests who are faithful to the Catholic faith and to the Catholic Church, so as to maintain Tradition, which is the bulwark of our Faith. If there is a movement as general as this it is because the situation in the Church is truly serious.
If Catholics and good priests, some of whom have served in parishes for thirty years to the great satisfaction of their parishioners, have been able to beat the insult of being treated as disobedient rebels and dissidents, it could have only have been so as to maintain the Catholic Faith. They do it knowingly, following the spirit of the martyrs.
Whether one is persecuted by one's own brethren or by the enemies of the Church, it is still to suffer martyrdom, provided it be for the maintaining of the Faith. These priests and faithful are witnesses of the Catholic Faith. They prefer to be considered rebels and dissidents rather than lose their Faith.
Throughout the entire world we are in the presence of a tragic and unheard of situation, which seems never to have happened before in the history of the Church. We must at least try to explain this extraordinary phenomenon. How has it come to pass that good faithful and priests are obliged to fight to maintain the Catholic faith in a Catholic world, which is in the process of totally breaking up?
It was Pope Paul VI himself who spoke of self-destruction within the Church. What does this term self-destruction mean, if it is not that the Church is destroying herself by herself, and hence by her own members. This is already what Pope St. Pius X said in his first encyclical when he wrote: “Henceforth the enemy of the church is no longer outside the church, he is now within." And the Pope did not hesitate to designate those places where he was to be found: "The enemy is found in the seminaries." Consequently, the holy Pope St. Pius X already denounced the presence of the enemies of the Church in the seminaries at the beginning of the century.
Obviously the seminarians of the time, who where imbued with modernism, sillonism and progressivism, later became priests. Some of them even became Bishops and among them were even some Cardinals. One could quote the names of those who were seminarians at the beginning of the century and who are now dead but whose spirit was clearly modernist and progressivist.
Thus already Pope St. Pius X denounced this division in the Church, which was to be the beginning of a very real rupture within the Church and within the clergy.
I am no longer young. During my whole life as a seminarian, as a priest and as a Bishop I have seen this division. I saw it already at the French seminary at Rome where by the grace of God I was able to study. I must admit that I was not very keen to do my studies in Rome. I would personally have preferred to study with the seminarians of my diocese in the Lille Seminary and to become an assistant vicar, and finally a parish priest in a small country parish.
I longed simply to maintain the Faith in a parish. I saw myself somewhat as the spiritual father of a population to which I was sent to teach the Catholic Faith and morals. But it happened otherwise. After the First World War my brother was already at Rome, for he had been separated from the family by the circumstances of the war in the north of France. Consequently my parents insisted that I go to be with him. "Since your brother is already at Rome, at the French seminary, go and join him so as to continue your studies with him." Thus I left for Rome. I studied at the Gregorian University from 1923 to 1930. I was ordained in 1929 and I remained as a priest at the seminary during one year.
THE FIRST VICTIMS OF MODERNISM
During my Seminary years tragic events took place, which now remind me of exactly what I lived through during the Council. I am now in practically the same situation as our Seminary Rector at the time. Fr. Le Floch. When I was there he had already been Rector of the French Seminary at Rome for thirty years. From Brittany, he was a very outstanding man and as strong and firm in the Faith as Brittany granite. He taught us the Papal encyclicals and the exact nature of the Modernism condemned by St. Pius X, the modern errors condemned by Leo XIII and the liberalism condemned by Pius IX. We liked our Fr. Le Floch very much. We were very attached to him.
But his firmness in doctrine and in Tradition obviously displeased the progressive wing. Progressive Catholics already existed at that time. The Popes had to condemn them.
Not only did Fr. Le Floch displease the progressives, but he also displeased the French government. The French government feared that by the intermediary of Fr. Le Floch and by that formation, which was given to the seminarians at the French Seminary in Rome traditional Bishops, would come to France and would give to the Church in France a traditional and clearly anti-liberal direction.
For the French government was Masonic and consequently profoundly liberal and frightened at the thought that non-liberal Bishops could take over the most important posts. Pressure was consequently exerted on the Pope so as to eliminate Fr. Le Floch. It was Francisque Gay, the future leader of the M.R.P., who was in charge of this operation. He came to Rome to exert pressure on Pope Pius XI, denouncing Fr. Le Floch as being, so he said, a member of "Action Franaise" and a politician who taught his seminarians to also be members of "Action Franaise.’
This was all nothing but a lie. For three years I heard Fr. Le Floch in his spiritual conferences. Never did he speak to us of "Action Franaise." Likewise people now say to me: "You were formerly a member of Action Franaise.’” I have never been a member of "Action Franaise."
Clearly we were accused of being members of "Action Franaise," Nazis and fascists and every other pejorative label because we were anti-revolutionary and anti-liberal.
Thus an inquiry was made. The Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (Card. Schuster) was sent to the seminary. He wasn't the least of the Cardinals. He was in fact a Benedictine of great holiness and intelligence. He had been designated by Pope Pius XI to make the inquiry at the French Seminary so as to determine if the accusations of Francisque Gay were true or not. The inquiry took place. The result was: the French Seminary functions perfectly well under the direction of Fr. Le Floch. We have absolutely nothing to reproach the Seminary Rector with. But this did not suffice.
Three months later a new inquiry was begun, this time with the order to do away with Fr. Le Floch. The new inquiry was made by a member of a Roman Congregation. He concluded, in effect, that Fr. Le Floch was a friend of "Action Franaise," that he was dangerous for the Seminary and that he had to be asked to resign. This is just what happened.
In 1926 the Holy See requested Fr. Le Floch to kindly abandon his post as Rector of the French Seminary. He was overwhelmed with sorrow. Fr. Le Floch had never been a politician. He was traditional, attached to the doctrines of the Church and the Popes. In addition he had been a great friend of Pope St. Pius X, who had had great confidence in him. It was precisely because he was a friend of St. Pius X that he was the enemy of the progressive wing.
It was at the same time that I was at the French Seminary that Cardinal Billot was also attacked. He was a first class theologian at the time and remains today well known and studied in our Seminaries. Monseigneur Billot, Cardinal of the Holy Church, was deposed. The purple was taken away from him and he was sent away in penance to Castelgandolfo, quite close to Albano, where the Jesuits have a house. He was forbidden to leave under pretext of having connections with "Action Franaise."
In fact Cardinal Billot never belonged to "Action Franaise." He did, however, hold Naurras in high esteem and had cited him in his theology books. In the second volume concerning the Church (De Ecclesia), for example, Cardinal Billot accomplished a magnificent study of liberalism where he took, in the form of notes, several quotations from Maurras. This was a mortal sin! This was all they could find to depose Cardinal Billot. It is not a minor tragedy, for he was one of the great theologians of his time and yet he was deposed as a Cardinal and reduced to the state of a simple priest, for he was not a Bishop. (At that time there were still some Cardinal deacons.) It was already the persecution.
POPE PlUS XI UNDERWENT THE INFLUENCE OF THE PROGRESSIVE WING
Pope Pius XI himself fell under the influence of the progressives who were already present in Rome. For we see a distinct difference from the Popes before and after. But nevertheless Pope Pius XI at the same time wrote some magnificent encyclicals. He was not a liberal. "Divini Redemptoris," his encyclical against Communism was magnificent. So also was his encyclical on Christ the King, which established the feast of Christ The King and proclaimed the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. His encyclical on Christian Education is absolutely admirable and remains today a fundamental document for those who defend Catholic schools.
If on the level of doctrine Pope Pius XI was an admirable man, he was weak in the order of practical action. He was easily influenced. It is thus that he was very strongly influenced at the time of the Mexican Civil War and gave the Cristeros, who were in the process of defending the Catholic religion and combating for Christ the King, the order to have confidence in the government and to put down their arms. As soon as they had put down their arms they were all massacred. This horrifying massacre is still remembered today in Mexico. Pope Pius XI placed confidence in the government who deceived him. Afterwards, he was visibly very upset. He could not imagine how a government, which had promised to treat with honor those who defended their Faith, could have then gone on to massacre them. Thus thousands of Mexicans were killed on account of their Faith.
Already at the beginning of this century we find certain situations, which announce a division in the Church. Slowly we arrived at it, but the division was very definite just before the council.
Pope Pius XII was a great pope well in his writing as in his way of governing the Church. During the reign of Pius XII the Faith was firmly maintained. Naturally the liberals did not like him, for he brought back to mind the fundamental principles of theology and truth.
But then John XXIII came along. He had a totally different temperament than Pius XII. John XXIII was a very simple and open man. He did not see problems anywhere.
When he decided to hold a Synod Rome they said to him, "But Holy Father, a Synod has to be prepared. At least one year is necessary and perhaps two so as to prepare such a meeting, in order that numerous fruits be gained and that reforms be truly studied and then applied so that your diocese of Rome might draw profit from it. All this cannot be done straight away and in the space of two or three months followed by two weeks of meetings and then all will be fine. It is not possible."
"Oh yes, yes I know, I know, but it going to be a small Synod. We can prepare it in a few months and everything will be just fine."
Thus the Synod was rapidly prepared: a few commissions at Rome, everybody very busy and then two weeks of meetings and all was over with. Pope John XXIII was happy his small Synod had been held, but the results were nil. Nothing had changed in the diocese of Rome. The situation was exactly the same as before.
THE DRIFT BEGINS WITH THE COUNCIL
It was exactly the same thing for the Council. "I have the intention to hold a Council." Already Pope Pius XII had been asked by certain Cardinals to hold a Council. But he had refused, believing that it was impossible. We cannot in our time hold a Council with 2,500 bishops. The pressures that can exercised by the mass media are too dangerous for us to dare hold a Council. We are liable to get out of depth. And there was in fact no Council.
But Pope John XXIII said: "But it’s fine: we don't need to be pessimistic. You have to look on things with confidence. We will come together for three months with all the Bishops of the entire world. We will begin on October 13. Then everything will be over with between December 8 and January 25. Everybody will go home, and the Council will be over and done with."
And so the Pope held the Council! Nevertheless it did have to be prepared. A Council cannot be held off the bat just like a Synod. It was indeed prepared two years in advance. I was personally named as a member of the Central Preparatory Commission as Archbishop of Dakar and president of the West African Episcopal Conference. I therefore came to Rome at least ten times during the two years so as to participate in the meetings of the Central Preparatory Commission.
It was very important, for all the documents of the secondary commissions had to come through it so as to be studied and submitted to the Council. There were in this commission seventy Cardinals and around twenty Archbishops and Bishops, as well as the experts. These experts were not members of the Commission, but were only present so they could eventually be consulted by the members.
THE APPEARANCE OF DIVISION
During these two years the meetings followed one another and it became clearly apparent for all the members present that there was a profound division within the Church itself. This profound division was not accidental or superficial but was even deeper amongst the Cardinals than amongst the Archbishops and Bishops. On the occasion of the casting of votes the conservative Cardinals could be seen to vote in one way and the progressive Cardinals in another. And all the votes were always more or less the same way. There was obviously a real division amongst the Cardinals.
I describe the following incident in one of my books A Bishop Speaks. I often mention it because it truly characterizes the end of the Central Commission and the beginning of the Council. It was during the last meeting, and we had received beforehand ten documents on the same subject. Cardinal Bea had prepared a text "De Libertate Religiosa," "Concerning Religious Liberty." Cardinal Ottaviani had prepared another, "De 'Tolerantia Religiosa, "Concerning Religious Tolerance."
The simple fact the two different titles on the same subject was significant of two different conceptions. Cardinal Bea spoke of freedom for all religions and Cardinal Ottaviani of freedom for the Catholic religion along with tolerance of error and false religions. How could such a disagreement have been resolved by the Commission?
From the beginning Cardinal Ottaviani pointed the finger at Cardinal Bea and said, “Your Eminence, you do not have the right to present this document."
Cardinal Bea replied, “Excuse me but I have perfectly the right to put together a document as President of the Commission for Unity. Consequently, I have knowingly put together this document. Moreover, I am totally opposed to your opinion."
Thus two of the most eminent Cardinals, Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, and Cardinal Bea, former Confessor of Pope Pius XII, a Jesuit having a great deal of influence on all the Cardinals, who was well known in the Biblical Institute and responsible for advanced biblical studies, were opposed on a fundamental thesis in the Church. Unity for all religions is one thing, that is to say that liberty and error are placed on the same footing; but liberty of the Catholic religion along with tolerance of error is something quite different. Traditionally the Church has always been for the opinion of Cardinal Ottaviani and not for that of Cardinal Bea, which is totally liberal.
Then Cardinal Ruffini, from Palermo, stood up and said; “We are now in the presence of two confreres who are opposed to one another on a question which is very important in the Church. We are consequently obliged to refer to a higher authority."
Quite often the Pope came to preside over our meetings. But he was not there for this last meeting. Consequently the Cardinals requested to vote: "We cannot wait to go and see the Holy Father. We are going to vote." We voted. Just about one half of the Cardinals voted for the opinion of Cardinal Bea and the other half for that of Cardinal Ottaviani. All those who voted for Cardinal Bea's opinion were the Dutch, German, French and Austrian Cardinals, and all those in general from Europe and North America. The traditional Cardinals were those of the Roman Curia, from South America and in general those of Spanish Language.
It was a true rupture in the Church. From this moment I asked myself how the Council could proceed with such opposition on such important points. Who would win? Would it be Cardinal Ottaviani with the Cardinals of Spanish or romance languages or would it be the European Cardinals and those of North America?
In effect, the battle began immediately, from the very first days of the Council. Cardinal Ottaviani had presented the list of members who had belonged to the preparatory commissions, leaving full freedom for each to chose those that he wanted. It was obvious that we could not all know one another, since each one came for his own diocese. How could one possibly know the 2,500 Bishops of the world? We were asked to vote for members of the commissions of the Council. But who could we chose? We did not know the Bishops from South America nor from South Africa nor from India. ..
Cardinal Ottaviani thought that Rome's choices for the preparatory commissions could help as an indication for the Council Fathers. It was in fact quite normal to propose these.
Cardinal Lienart arose and said, "We do not accept this way of doing things. We ask for 48 hours to reflect, that we might know better those who could make up the different commissions. This is to exert pressure on the judgement of the Fathers. We do not accept it."
The Council had begun only two days previously and already there was a violent opposition between the Cardinals. What had happened?
During these 48 hours the liberal Cardinals had already prepared lists made out from all the countries of the world. They distributed these in the letterboxes of all the Council Fathers. We had therefore all received a list proposing the members of such and such a commission; that is such a bishop and another etc. from different countries. Many said: "After all why not. I do not know them. Since the list is already ready we have simply to make use of it." Forty-eight hours later it was the liberals' list, which was in front. But it did not receive the two thirds of the votes, which were required by the Council rules.
What then would the Pope do? Would Pope John XXIII make an exception to the rules of the Council or would he apply them? Clearly the liberal Cardinals were afraid that he might apply them and so they ran to the Pope and said to him: "Listen, we have more than half the votes, nearly 60%. You cannot refuse that. We cannot keep going like this and hold another election. We will never be done with it. This is clearly the will of the majority of the Council and we have simply to accept it." And Pope John XXIII accepted. From this beginning all the members of the Council commissions were chosen by the liberal wing. It is easy to imagine what an enormous influence this had on the Council.
I am sure Pope John XXIII died prematurely because of what he saw at the Council, although he had thought that at the end of a few months everything would be done with. It was to be a council of three months. Then all would say good-bye and go home happy for having met one another at Rome and for having had a nice little meeting.
He discovered that the Council was to be a world of itself, a world of continual clashes. No text came from the first session of the Council. Pope John XXIII was overwhelmed by this and I am persuaded that this hastened his death. It has even been said that on his deathbed he said: “Stop the Council; stop the Council."
POPE PAUL VI GIVES HIS SUPPORT TO THE LIBERALS
Pope Paul VI came along. It is obvious that he gave his support to the liberal wing. Why was that?
From the very beginning of his pontificate, during the second Session of the Council, he immediately named four Moderators. The four Moderators were to direct the Council instead of the ten Presidents who had presided during the first Session. The Presidents, one of whom had presided over one meeting and then the second and then the third, sat at a table higher than the others. But they were to become honorary Presidents. The four Moderators became the true Presidents of the Council.
Who were these moderators? Cardinal Dopfner of Munich was one. He was very progressive indeed and very ecumenical. Cardinal Suenens, whom the entire world knows along with his charismatics and who has given conferences in favor of the marriage of priests, was another. Cardinal Lercaro who is known for his philocommunism and whose Vicar General had been enrolled as a member of the Communist party was a third. Finally there was Cardinal Agagianian, who represented somewhat the traditional wing, if I can say so.
Cardinal Agagianian was a very discreet and self-effacing man. Consequently he had no real influence on the Council. But the three others accomplished their task with drums beating. They constantly brought together the liberal Cardinals, which gave considerable authority to the liberal wing of the Council.
Clearly the traditional Cardinals and Bishops were from this very moment put aside and despised.
When poor Cardinal Ottaviani, who was blind, started to speak, boos could be heard amongst the young Bishops when he did not finish at the end of the ten minutes allocated to him. Thus did they make him understand that they had had enough of listening to him. He had to stop; it was frightful. This venerable Cardinal, who was honored throughout Rome and who had had an enormous influence on the Holy Church, who was Prefect of the Holy Office, which is not a small function, was obliged to stop. It was scandalous to see how the traditionalists were treated.
Monseigneur Staffa (he has since been named Cardinal), who is very energetic, was silenced by the Council Moderators. These were unbelievable things.
REVOLUTION OF THE CHURCH
This is what happened at the Council. It is obvious that all the Council documents and texts were influenced by the liberal Cardinals and Commissions. It is hardly astonishing that we have such ambiguous texts, which favor so many changes and even a true revolution in the Church.
Could we have done anything, we who represented the traditional wing of the Bishops and Cardinals? Frankly speaking, we could do little. We were 250 who favored the maintenance of Tradition and who were opposed to such major changes in the Church as false renewal, false ecumenism, false collegiality. We were opposed to all these things. These 250 bishops clearly brought some weight to bear and on certain occasions forced texts to be modified. Thus the evil was somewhat limited.
But we could not succeed in preventing certain false opinions from being adopted, especially in the schema on Religious Liberty, whose text was redone five times. Five times the same opinion was brought forward. We opposed it on each occasion. There were always 250 votes against. Consequently Pope Paul VI asked that two small sentences be added to the text, saying that there is nothing in this text which is contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church and that the Church remains always the true and the only Church of Christ.
Then the Spanish Bishops in particular said: "Since the Pope has made this statement there is no longer any problem. There is nothing against tradition." If these things are contradictory then this little phrase contradicts everything, which is in the texts. It is a contradictory schema. We could not accept it. Finally there remained, if I remember well, only 74 bishops against. It is the only schema, which met such opposition, but 74 of 2,500 is little indeed!
Thus ended the Council. We should not be astonished at the reforms, which have been introduced since. Since then, everything is the history of Liberalism. The liberals were victorious within the Council for they demanded that Paul VI grant them places within the Roman Congregations. And in fact the important places were given to the progressive clergy. As soon as a Cardinal died or an occasion presented itself, Pope Paul VI would put aside traditional Cardinals, immediately replacing them with liberal ones.
Thus it is that Rome was occupied by the liberals. This is a fact, which cannot be denied. Nor can it be denied that the reforms of the Council were reforms which breathe the spirit of Ecumenism and which are quite simply Protestant, neither more nor less.
THE LITURGICAL REFORM
The most serious of the consequences was the liturgical reform. It was accomplished, as everybody knows, by a well-known priest, Bugnini, who had prepared it long in advance. Already in 1955 Fr. Bugnini had asked Msgr. Pintonello, general Chaplain of the Italian army, who had spent much time in Germany during the occupation, to translate Protestant liturgical texts. For Fr. Bugnini did not know German.
It was Msgr. Pintonello himself who told me that he had translated the Protestant liturgical books for Fr. Bugnini, who at that time was but an insignificant member of a liturgical commission. He was nothing. Afterwards he became professor of liturgy at the Lateran. Pope John XXIII made him leave on account of his modernism and his progressivism. Hence surprise, surprise, and he is found again as President of the Commission for, Liturgical Reform. This is all the same, unbelievable.
I had the occasion to see for myself what influence Fr. Bugnini had. One wonders how such a thing as this could have happened at Rome. At that time immediately after the Council, I was Superior General of the Congregation of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and we had a meeting of the Superiors General at Rome. We had asked Fr. Bugnini explain to us what his New Mass was, for this was not at all a small event. Immediately after the Council was heard of the Normative Mass, the New Mass, the Novus Ordo. What did all this mean?
It had not been spoken of at the Council. What had happened? And so we asked Fr. Bugnini to come and explain himself to the 84 Superiors General who were united together, amongst whom I consequently was.
Fr. Bugnini, with much confidence, explained what the Normative Mass would be; this will be changed, that will be changed and we will put in place another Offertory. We will be able to reduce the communion prayers. We will be able to have several different formats for the beginning of Mass. We will be able to say the Mass in the vernacular tongue. We looked at one another saying to ourselves: “But it's not possible!"
He spoke absolutely, as if there had never been a Mass in the Church before him. He spoke of his Normative Mass as of a new invention.
Personally I was myself so stunned that I remained mute, although I generally speak freely when it is a question of opposing those with whom I am not in agreement. I could not utter a word. How could it be possible for this man before me to be entrusted with the entire reform of the Catholic Liturgy, the entire reform of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the sacraments, of the Breviary, and of all our prayers? Where are we going? Where is the Church going?
Two Superiors General had the courage to speak out. One of them asked Fr. Bugnini: “Is this an active participation, that is a bodily participation, that is to say with vocal prayers, or is it a spiritual participation? In any case you have so much spoken of the participation of the faithful that it seems you can no longer justify Mass celebrated without the faithful. Your entire Mass has been fabricated around the participation of the faithful. We Benedictines celebrate our Masses without the assistance of the faithful. Does this mean that we must discontinue our private Masses, since we do not have faithful to participate in them?"
I repeat to you exactly that which Fr. Bugnini said. I have it still in my ears, so much did it strike me: “To speak truthfully we didn't think of that," he said!
Afterwards another arose and said: "Reverend Father, you have said that we will suppress this and we will suppress that, that we will replace this thing by that and always by shorter prayers. I have the impression that your new Mass could be said in ten or twelve minutes or at the most a quarter of an hour. This is not reasonable. This is not respectful towards such an act of the Church." Well, this is what he replied: "We can always add something." Is this for real? I heard it myself. If somebody had told me the story I would perhaps have doubted it, but I heard it myself.
Afterwards, at the time at which this Normative Mass began to be put into practice, I was so disgusted that we met with some priests and theologians in a small meeting. From it came the “Brief Critical Study,” which was taken to Cardinal Ottaviani. I presided that small meeting. We said to ourselves: “We must go and find the Cardinals. We cannot allow this to happen without reacting."
So I myself went to find the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, and I said to him: “Your Eminence, you are not going to allow this to get through, are you? It's not possible. What is this New Mass? It is a revolution in the Church, a revolution in the Liturgy."
Cardinal Cicognani, who was the Secretary of State of Pope Paul VI, placed his head between his hands and said to me: "Oh Monseigneur, I know well. I am in full agreement with you; but what can I do? Fr. Bugnini goes in to the office of the Holy Father and makes him sign what he wants." It was the Cardinal Secretary of State who told me this! Therefore the Secretary of State, the number two person in the Church after the Pope himself, was placed in a position of inferiority with respect to Fr. Bugnini. He could enter into the Pope's office when he wanted and make him sign what he wanted.
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...3D15.1&f=1]](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.SfgXthR3lwzUWzjO0OD81AHaE_%26pid%3D15.1&f=1)
This can explain why Pope Paul VI signed texts that he had not read. He told Cardinal Journet that he had done this. Cardinal Journet was a deep thinker, Professor at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, and a great theologian. When Cardinal Journet saw the definition of the Mass in the instruction, which precedes the Novus Ordo, he said: ”This definition of the Mass is unacceptable; I must go to Rome to see the Pope." He went and he said: “Holy Father you cannot allow this definition. It is heretical. You cannot leave your signature on a document like this." The Holy Father replied to him (Cardinal Journet did not tell me himself but he told someone who repeated it to me): ”Well, to speak truthfully I did not read it. I signed it without reading it." Evidently, if Fr. Bugnini had such an influence on him it's quite possible. He must have said to the Holy Father: ”You can sign it". "But did you look it over carefully". ”Yes, you can go ahead and sign it." And he signed.
But this document did not go through the Holy Office. I know this because Cardinal Seper himself told me that he was absent when the Novus Ordo was edited and that it did not pass by the Holy Office. Hence it is indeed Fr. Bugnini who obtained the Pope's signature and who perhaps constrained him. We do not know, but he had without a doubt an extraordinary influence over the Holy Father.
A third fact, of which I was myself the witness, with respect to Fr. Bugnini is also astonishing. When permission was about to be give for Communion in the hand (what a horrible thing!), I said to myself that I could not sit by without saying anything. I must go and see Cardinal Gut -a Swiss -who was Prefect of the Congregation for Worship. I therefore went to Rome, where Cardinal Gut received me in a very friendly way and immediately said to me: "I'm going to make my second-in- charge, Archbishop Antonini, come that he also might hear what you have to say."
As we spoke I said: "Listen, you who are responsible for the Congregation for Worship, are you going to approve this decree which authorizes Communion in the hand? Just think of all the sacrileges, which it is going to cause. Just think of the lack of respect for the Holy Eucharist, which is going to spread throughout the entire Church. You cannot possibly allow such a thing to happen. Already priests are beginning to give Communion in this manner. It must be stopped immediately. And with this New Mass they always take the shortest canon, that is the second one, which is very brief"
At this, Cardinal Gut said to Archbishop Antonini, "See, I told you this would happen and that priests would take the shortest canon so as to go more quickly and finish the Mass more quickly."
Afterwards Cardinal Gut said to me: "Monseigneur, if one were to ask my opinion (when he said "one" he was speaking of the Pope, since nobody was over him except the Pope), but I'm not certain it is asked of me (don't forget that he was Prefect for the Congregation for Worship and was responsible for everything which was related to Worship and to the Liturgy!), but if the Pope were to ask for it, I would place myself on my knees, Monseigneur, before the Pope and I would say to him: 'Holy Father do not do this; do not sign this decree.' I would cast myself on my knees, Monseigneur. But I do not know that I will be asked. For it is not I who command here."
This I heard with my own ears. He was making allusion to Bugnini, who was the third in the Congregation for Worship. There was first of all Cardinal Gut, then Archbishop Antonini and then Fr. Bugnini, President of the Liturgical Commission. You ought to have heard that! Alas, you can now understand my attitude when I am told; you are a dissident and disobedient rebel.
INFILTRATORS IN THE CHURCH TO DESTROY IT
Yes, I am a rebel. Yes, I am a dissident. Yes, I am disobedient to people like those Bugninis. For they have infiltrated themselves into the Church in order to destroy it. There is no other explanation.
Are we then going to contribute to the destruction of the Church? Will we say: "Yes, yes, amen'; even if it is the enemy who has penetrated right to the Holy Father and who is able to make the Holy Father sign what he wants? We don't really know under what pressure he did it. There are hidden things, which clearly escape us. Some say that it is Freemasonry. It's possible. I do not know. In any case, there is a mystery.
How can a priest who is not a Cardinal, who is not even a Bishop, who was still very young at the time and who was elevated against the will of Pope John XXIII (who had chased him from the Lateran University), how can such a priest go to the very top without taking any account of the Cardinal Secretary of State, nor of the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Worship? How can he go directly to the Holy Father and make him sign what he wants? Such a thing has never before been seen in the Holy Church. Everything should go through the authorities. That is why there are Commissions. Files are studied. But this man was all powerful!
It was he who brought in Protestant pastors to change our Mass. It was not Cardinal Gut. It was not the Cardinal Secretary of State. It was perhaps not even the Pope. It was him. Who is this man Bugnini? One day the former Abbot of St. Paul Outside the Walls, a Benedictine who had preceded Fr. Bugnini as head of the Liturgical Commission, said to me: "Monseigneur, do not speak to me of Fr. Bugnini. I know too much about him. Do not ask me about him." I replied: "But tell me. I must know it. The truth must be uncovered." It is probably he who asked John XXIII to send him away from the Lateran University.
All of these things show us that the enemy has penetrated right within the Church, as St. Pius X already said. He is in the highest places, as Our Lady of La Salette announced, and as without a doubt the third secret of Fatima tells us.
Well, if the enemy is truly within the Church, must we obey him? "Yes, for he represents the Pope," is a frequent answer. First of all we do not know this at all, for we do not know exactly what the Pope thinks.
I have, all the same, some personal proofs that Pope Paul VI was very much influenced by Cardinal Villot. It has been said that Cardinal Villot was a Freemason. I do not know. There are some strange facts. Letters of Freemasons addressed to Cardinal Villot have been photocopied. I do not have the proof of it. In any case, Cardinal Villot had a considerable influence over the Pope. He concentrated all power at Rome within his own hands. He became the master much more than the Pope. I do know that everything had to go through him.
One day I went to see Cardinal Wright with respect to the Canadian Catechism. I said to him: "Look at this catechism. Are you aware of those little books, which are entitled 'Purture'? It's abominable that children are taught to break away. They must break with their family, with society, with tradition. ..this is the catechism, which is taught to the children of Canada with the Imprimatur of Monseigneur Couderc. It's you who are responsible for catechism in the entire world. Are you in agreement with this catechism?" "No, no," he said to me: "This catechism is not Catholic" -"It is not Catholic! Then immediately tell the Canadian Bishops' Conference. Tell them to stop and to throw this catechism in the fire and to take up the true catechism." His answer was: "How can I oppose myself to a Bishops' Conference?"
I then said: "It's over and done with. There is no more authority in the Church. It's over and done with. If Rome can no longer say anything to a Bishops' Conference, even if it is in the process of destroying children's Faith, then it's the end of the Church."
That is where we are now. Rome is afraid of the Bishops' Conferences. These conferences are abominable. In France the Bishops' Conference has been involved in a campaign in favor of contraception. The Socialist Government, which is constantly advertising on the television the slogan: "Take the pill so as to prevent abortions," got them involved, I think. They had nothing better to do than push crazy propaganda in favor of the pill. The cost of the pill is reimbursed for girls of only twelve years, so as to avoid abortion! And the bishops approve! Official documents in favor of contraception can be found in the Tulle diocese bulletin, which is my former diocese, and which bulletin I continue to receive This came from Bishop Bruneau, a former Superior General of the Sulpicians. He is supposedly one of the best Bishops of France. It's like that!
WHY DO I NOT OBEY?
What should I do? I am told: "You must obey. You are disobedient. You do not have the right to continue doing what you are doing, for you divide the Church."
What is a law? What is a decree? What obliges to obedience? A law, Leo XIII says, is the ordering of reason to the common good, but not towards the common evil. This is so obvious that if a rule is ordered towards an evil, then it is no longer a law. Leo XIII said this explicitly in his encyclical "Libertas." A law, which is not for the common good, is not a law. Consequently one is not obliged to obey it.
Many canon lawyers at Rome say that Bugnini's Mass is not a law. There was no law for the New Mass. It is simply an authorization, or a permit. Let us accept, for argument's sake, that there was a law, which came from Rome, an ordering of reason to the common good and not to the common evil. But the New Mass is in the process of destroying the Church, of destroying the Faith. It's obvious. The Archbishop of Montreal, Archbishop Grgoire, in a letter, which was published, was very courageous. He is one of the rare bishops who dared write a letter in which he denounced the evils of which the Church of Montreal is suffering. "We are greatly saddened to see parishes abandoned by a great number of the faithful. We attribute this, in great part, to the liturgical reform." He had the courage to say it.
We are in the presence of a true plot within the church on the part of the Cardinals themselves, such as Cardinal Knox, who made that famous inquiry concerning the Tridentine Latin Mass throughout the entire world. It was a clear and obvious lie, so as to influence Pope John Paul II that he might say: "If there are such a small number who want Tradition, it will fall away by itself. His investigation was worth nothing." Yet the Pope, at the time that he received me in audience in November of 1978, was ready to sign an agreement according to which priests could celebrate the mass they choose. He was ready to sign that.
But there is at Rome a group of Cardinals bitterly opposed to Tradition. Cardinal Casaroli the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Religious and Cardinal Baggio, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops who has the very important responsibility of nominating bishops, are amongst them. Then there is the infamous Virgilio Noe who is the second-in- charge for the Congregation for Worship and who is perhaps worse even than Bugnini. And then there is Cardinal Hamer, the Belgian Archbishop who is second in charge of the Holy Office, who comes from the region of Louvain and is imbued with all the modern ideas of Louvain. They were bitterly opposed to Tradition. They did not want to hear us speak about it. I believe that they would have strangled me if they could.
AT LEAST LEAVE US LIBERTY
They league together against me as soon as they know I am making an effort to obtain from the Holy Father the freedom for Tradition. Just leave us in peace; just leave us to pray as Catholics have prayed for centuries; just leave us to continue what we learned in the seminary; just leave us to continue that which you yourselves learned when you were young, that is to say the best way to sanctify ourselves.
This is what we were taught at the Seminary. I taught this when I was a priest. When I became a bishop I myself said this to my priests, to all my priests and to all my seminarians. This is what you need to do to become a saint. Love the holy sacrifice of the Mass, which is given to us by the Church. Be devoted to her sacraments and her catechism, and especially change nothing. Keep Tradition. Keep to the Tradition, which has lasted for twenty centuries. It is that which sanctifies us. It is that which sanctified the saints. But now all has been changed. This cannot be. Just leave us at least freedom!
Obviously, when they hear this they immediately go to the Holy Father and say to him: "Concede nothing to Archbishop Lefebvre, grant nothing to Tradition. Especially do not back down."
Since these are the most important Cardinals, such as Cardinal Casaroli the Secretary of State the Pope does not dare. There are some Cardinals who would be rather more in favor of an agreement, such as Cardinal Ratzinger. It is he who replaced Cardinal Seper who died at Christmas of 1981. Cardinal Ratzinger was nevertheless very liberal at the time of the Council. He was a friend of Rahner, of Hans Kung, and of Schillebeeckx. But his nomination as Archbishop of the diocese of Munich seemed to open his eyes somewhat. He is now certainly much more aware of the danger of the reforms and more desirous of returning to traditional rules, along with Cardinal Palazzini who is in charge of the Congregation for Beatifications and Cardinal Oddi who is in charge of the Congregation for the Clergy. These three cardinals would be in favor of allowing us freedom. But the others have still a great deal of influence over the Holy Father...
I was at Rome five weeks ago, so as to see Cardinal Ratzinger who was named by the Pope to replace Cardinal Seper as a personal intermediary for relations with the Society and myself. Cardinal Seper had been named on the occasion of the audience, which Pope John Paul II granted me. The Pope had made Cardinal Seper come and had said to him: "Your Eminence, you will have the job of maintaining relations between Archbishop Lefebvre and myself. You will be my intermediary." Now he has named Cardinal Ratzinger.
I went to see him and I spoke with him during an hour and three quarters. Certainly Cardinal Ratzinger seems more positive and more willing to come to a good solution. The only difficulty, which remains rather troublesome, is the Mass. Ultimately it has always been a question of the Mass, right from the beginning.
For they know very well that I am not against the Council. There are some things, which I cannot accept in the Council. I did not sign the schema on Religious Liberty. I did not sign the schema on the Church in the modern world. But it cannot be said that I am against the Council. These are things, which cannot be accepted because they are contrary to Tradition. This ought not to upset them too much, since the Pope himself said: "The Council must be looked at in the light of Tradition." If the Council is to be accepted in the light of Tradition I am not at all upset.
I will readily sign this, because everything, which is contrary to Tradition, is clearly to be rejected. During the audience, which the Pope granted me (-on November 18, 1978 - Ed.),, he asked me: "Are you ready to sign this formula?” I replied: "You yourself used it and I am ready to sign it." Then he said: "Then there are no doctrinal differences between us? " I replied: "I hope not." - "Now what problems remain? Do you accept the Pope?" - "Of course we recognize the Pope and we pray for the Pope in our Seminaries. Ours are perhaps the only seminaries in the world where the Pope is prayed for. We have a great deal of respect for the Pope. Each time the Pope has asked me to come I have always come. But there is a difficulty concerning the liturgy,” I said to him, “which is truly very important. The new liturgy is in the process of destroying the Church and the Seminaries. This is a very important question.” – “But not at all. This is but a disciplinary question. It is not very serious at all. If this is the only problem. I believe that it can be fixed up.”
And the Pope called Cardinal Seper, who came immediately. If he had not come I believe that the Pope would have been ready to sign an agreement. Cardinal Seper came, and the Pope said to him: “I believe that it should not be so difficult to make an agreement with Archbishop Lefebvre. I believe that we can come to an agreement. There is just the question of the liturgy which is a little thorny.” – “But, concede nothing to Archbishop Lefebvre,” cried out the Cardinal. “They make of the Tridentine Mass a flag.” – “A flag?” I said. “But of course the holy mass is the flag of our Faith, the ‘mysterium fidei.’ It is the great mystery of our Faith. It is obvious that it is our flag, for it is the expression of our Faith.”
This made a profound impression on the Holy Father, who appeared to change almost immediately. In my opinion this showed that the Pope is not a strong man. If he had been a strong man he would have said: "It is I who am going to decide this matter. We are going to fix things up." But no. Immediately he became as if were afraid. He became fearful, and when he left his office he said to Cardinal Seper: "You can speak together right now. You can try to make an arrangement with Archbishop Lefebvre. You can stay here. But I am obliged to go and see Cardinal Baggio. He has very many files to show me concerning Bishops. I must leave." As he left he said to me: "Stop, Monseigneur, stop." He was transformed. In a few minutes he had completely changed.
It was during this audience that I had shown him a letter that I had received from a Polish Bishop. He had written to me a year beforehand in order to congratulate me for the Seminary I had founded at Econe and for the priests that I was forming. He wished that I maintain the old Mass with all its Tradition. He added that he was not the only one. We are several Bishops who admire you, who admire your Seminary, the formation that you give to your priests and the Tradition that you maintain within the Church. For we are obliged to use the new liturgy, which makes our faithful lose the Faith.
That is what the Polish Bishop said. I took this letter with me when I went to see the Holy Father, saying to myself: "He will surely speak to me of Poland." I was not wrong. He said to me: "But you know, in Poland all is going very well. Why do you not accept the reforms? In Poland there are no problems. People are simply sorry to have lost the Latin. We were very attached to Latin, because it bound us to Rome and we are very Roman. It is a pity, but what can I do? There is no longer any Latin in the Seminaries nor in the Breviary nor in the Mass. There is no more Latin. It's quite unfortunate, but it's just like that. You see, in Poland these reforms were made and they did not create any difficulty. Our seminaries are full, and our Churches are full."
I said to the Holy Father: ”Allow me to show you a letter I received from Poland." I showed it to him. When he saw the name of the Bishop he said: "Oh, this is the greatest of the communists' enemies." -"It's a good reference," I said. The Pope read the letter carefully. I watched his face in order to see how he would react to those words which were twice repeated in the letter: "We are obliged to use the liturgical reform which makes our faithful lose the Faith." Obviously the Pope could not accept this. At the end he said to me: "Did you receive this letter just like that? " – “Yes, this is a photocopy that I bring to you." - "It must be a fake," he replied.
What could I say? I could no longer say anything. The Pope said to me: "You know, the Communists are very cunning in their efforts to provoke divisions among the Bishops." So according to him this was a letter fabricated by the Communists and then sent to me. I am very doubtful about this. This letter was posted in Austria, for I imagine that the author was afraid that the Communists would intercept it and that it would not arrive. That is why he posted it in Austria. I replied to the Bishop but I heard nothing more from him.
All this is to say that I think that there are even in Poland profound divisions. Moreover, there have always been divisions between the peace priests and those who wish to hold fast to Tradition. This has been tragic behind the iron curtain.
THE COMMUNIST INFLUENCE ON ROME
You ought to read the book "Moscow and the Vatican," by the Jesuit, Father Lepidi. It is extraordinary. It shows the influence that the Communists had in Rome, and how they were responsible for the nomination of Bishops and even of two Cardinals: Cardinal Lekai and Cardinal Tomaseck. Cardinal Lekai, was the successor of Cardinal Mindszenty, and Cardinal Tomaseck was the successor of Cardinal Beran. Both Cardinal Mindszenty and Cardinal Beran were heroes and martyrs for the Faith. They were replaced by peace priests who were determined above everything else to come to an understanding with the Communist government who persecuted traditional priests. These traditional priests went secretly to baptize in the countryside or to secretly catechize so as to continue their work as pastors in the Catholic Church, and yet they were persecuted by their Bishops, who said to them: "You do not have the right not to respect the rules of the Communist government. You do us a disfavor by acting against its laws.”
But these priests were ready to give their life so as to keep the Faith of children, so as to keep Faith in families, and so as to give sacraments to those who had need of them. Obviously in these countries one had always to ask for authorizations, if one wanted to carry the Blessed Sacrament to a hospital or to do anything at all. As soon as they left their sacristy these priests were obliged to ask the Communist party if it authorized them to do this or that. This was impossible. People died without the sacraments. Children were no longer educated in a Christian way. So the priests had to do these things in secret. If they were caught it was often because the Bishops themselves persecuted them. It's frightening.
Neither Cardinal Wyszynski nor Cardinal Slipyi nor Cardinal Mindszenty nor Cardinal Beran would have done such things as these. They, to the contrary, encouraged good priests, saying to them: "Go ahead, go ahead. If you are put into prison you will have done your duty as a priest. If you must die martyrs then you will be martyrs.”
This shows how much influence they had on Rome. We have great difficulty in imagining it. We cannot even believe it.
I have never been against the Pope. I have never said that the Pope is not the Pope. I am absolutely for the Pope, for the successor of Peter. I do not want to separate myself from Rome. But I am against modernism, progressivism, and all the bad and destructive influences, which Protestantism has had via the reforms. I am against all those reforms, which poison us and poison the life of the faithful.
Thus I am told: "You are against the Pope." No, I am not against the Pope. To the contrary, I come to help the Pope. For the Pope cannot be modernist; he cannot be progressivist. Even if he allows himself to be pushed around, it is by weakness. This can happen. St. Peter also was weak with respect to the Jews. And St. Paul severely reproached him for: “You do not walk according to the Gospel," he said to St. Peter. St. Peter was the Pope and St. Paul reproached him. And he did it vigorously: “I reproached the head of the Church because he was not walking according to the law of the Gospel." It was a grave thing to say this to the Pope.
St. Catherine of Siena also vehemently reproached several Popes. We must have the same attitude. We say: “Holy Father, you are not doing your duty. You must return to Tradition to be persecuted by all those Cardinals and Bishops who are modernists you are going to bring about the ruin of the Church."
I am sure that in his heart the Pope is profoundly concerned and that he seeks for a means to renew the Church. I hope that by our prayers and sacrifices and the prayers of those who love the Holy Church and who love the Pope we will succeed.
This will be especially by devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. If we pray to Our Lady, she who cannot abandon her Son, she who cannot abandon the Church that her Son founded, the mystical Spouse of her Son, we will be answered. It will be difficult and a miracle, but we will succeed.
As for myself, I do not want people to make me say that the New Mass is good, but that it is simply less good than the Traditional Mass. I cannot say that. I cannot say that these modern sacraments are good. They were made by Protestants. They were made by Bugnini. And Bugnini himself said on March 19, 1965, as can still be read in the “Osservatore Romano" and in “Documentation Catholique," which magazines published a translation of Bugnini's discourse: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants."
This was on March 19, 1965, just before all the reforms. Can we go to the Protestants and ask them concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, concerning our catechism? In what are you not in agreement? Do you not like this or do you not like that? ...Well we will suppress it. This is not possible. It would perhaps not be heretical to do so, but the Catholic Faith would be diminished. Thus it is that people no longer believe in Limbo, in Purgatory and in Hell. Original sin is no longer believed in, neither are the angels. Grace is not believed in. People no longer speak of that which is supernatural. Our Faith is being destroyed.
So we must absolutely maintain our Faith and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary. We desire to undertake a giant task, and without the help of the good Lord we will never be able to accomplish it. I am certainly aware of my weakness and of my isolation. What can I do by myself compared to the Pope or the Cardinals? I do not know. I go as a pilgrim, with my pilgrim's staff. I am going to say "keep the Faith." Keep the Faith. Be rather a martyr then abandon your Faith. You must keep the sacraments and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
You cannot say: "But it is all different now. It is not too bad after all. As for me, I have a solid Faith and I'm not likely to lose it." For it is clear that those who habitually attend the New Mass and the new sacraments undergo a gradual change of mentality. After a few years it will become apparent in questioning somebody who goes regularly to this new ecumenical Mass that he has adopted its ecumenical spirit. This means that he ends up by placing all religions on the same footing. If he is asked whether one can save oneself through Protestantism, through Buddhism, or through Islam he will reply: "But of course. All religions are good." And there you have it. He has become liberal and Protestant and is no longer Catholic.
There is only one religion. There are not two of them. If Our Lord is God and founded a religion, the Catholic Religion, there can be no other religion. It is not possible. The other religions are false. That is why Cardinal Ottaviani used the title: "Concerning Religious Tolerance.”
Errors can be tolerated when they cannot be prevented. But they cannot be placed on the same footing as the truth. There could then be no missionary spirit. The missionary spirit could not then be possible. If all the false religions save souls then why go out on mission? What is one going to do there? We have only to leave them in their religion and they are going to all save themselves. This is not possible. What, then, has the Church done for twenty centuries? Why all the martyrs? Why were they all massacred on the mission? Did the missionaries waste their time? Did the martyrs waste their blood and their lives? We cannot accept that.
We must remain Catholic. The slide into ecumenism is very dangerous. Easily one falls into a religion, which is no longer the Catholic religion.
I sincerely wish that all could be witnesses of Our Lord, of the Catholic Church of the Faith, and of Catholicism, even if we have to be despised and insulted in the newspapers, in the parishes and in the churches. What does it matter? We are witnesses of the Catholic Church. We are the true sons of the Catholic Church and true sons of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
+ Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
(Translated from Fideliter, Janvier-Fevrier 1992, and published in parts in various issues of the Angelus.)
[Emphasis and images - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - 1988 Statement: Can Obedience Oblige Us to Disobey |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 09:08 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- Replies (1)
|
|
29 March 1988
The Rector of the Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in Switzerland, Father Lorans, having asked me to help in drawing up this issue of the Letter from Écône, it seemed to me, in these circumstances, that it would not be without benefit to put before you again what I wrote on January 20, 1978, concerning certain objections which could be made as to our attitude with regard to the problems created by the present situation of the Church.
One of these questions was: "How do you see obedience to the Pope?" Here is the reply I gave ten years ago:
Quote:The principles governing obedience are known and are so in conformity with sane reason and common sense that one is driven to wonder how intelligent persons can make a statement like, "They prefer to be mistaken with the Pope, than to be with the truth against the Pope."
That is not what the natural law teaches, nor the Magisterium of the Church. Obedience presupposes an authority, which gives an order or issues a law. Human authorities, even those instituted by God, have no authority other than to attain the end apportioned them by God and not to turn away from it. When an authority uses power in opposition to the law for which this power was given it, such an authority has no right to be obeyed and one must disobey it.
This need to disobey is accepted with regard to a family father who would encourage his daughter to prostitute herself, with regard to the civil authority which would oblige doctors to perform abortions and kill innocent souls, yet people accept in every case the authority of the Pope, who is supposedly infallible in his government and in all words. Such an attitude betrays a sad ignorance of history and of the true nature of papal infallibility.
A long time ago St Paul said to St Peter that he was "Not walking according to the truth of the Gospel" (Gal. 2:14). St. Paul encouraged the faithful not to obey him, St. Paul, if he happened to preach any other gospel than the Gospel that he had already taught them (Gal. 1:8).
St. Thomas, when he speaks of fraternal correction, alludes to St Paul's resistance to St. Peter and he makes the following comment:
Quote:"To resist openly and in public goes beyond the measure of fraternal correction. St Paul would not have done it towards St. Peter if he had not in some way been his equal…We must realize, however, that if there was question of a danger for the faith, the superiors would have to be rebuked by their inferiors, even in public."
This is clear from the manner and reason for St. Paul's acting as he did with regard to St. Peter, whose subject he was, in such a way, says the gloss of St. Augustine, "that the very head of the Church showed to superiors that if they ever chanced to leave the straight and narrow path, they should accept to be corrected by their inferiors" (St. Thomas IIa, IIae, q.33, art.4, ad 2).
The case evoked by St. Thomas is not merely imaginary because it took place with regard to John XXII during his life. This pope thought he could state as a personal opinion that the souls of the elect do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment He wrote this opinion down in 1331 and in 1332 he preached a similar opinion with regard to the pains of the damned. He had the intention of putting forward this opinion in a solemn decree.
But the very lively action on the part of the Dominicans, above all in Paris, and of the Franciscans, made him renounce this opinion in favor of the traditional opinion defined by his successor, Benedict XII, in 1336.
And here is what Pope Leo XIII said in his Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888:
Quote:"If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law." And a little further on, he says: "But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest while obeying man, we become disobedient to God."
Now our disobedience is motivated by the need to keep the Catholic Faith. The orders being given us clearly express that they are being given us in order to oblige us to submit without reserve to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the prescriptions of the Holy See, that is to say, to the orientations and acts which are undermining our Faith and destroying the Church. It is impossible for us to do this. To collaborate in the destruction of the Church is to betray the Church and to betray Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now all the theologians worthy of this name teach that if the pope, by his acts, destroys the Church, we cannot obey him (Vitoria: Obras, pp. 486-487; Suarez: De Fide, disp. X, sec. VI, no.16; St. Robert Bellarmine: de Rom. Pont., Book 2, Ch. 29; Cornelius a Lapide: ad Gal. 2,11, etc.) and he must be respectfully, but publicly, rebuked.
The principles governing obedience to the Pope's authority are the same as those governing relations between a delegated authority and its subjects. They do not apply to the Divine Authority which is always infallible and indefectible and hence incapable of failing. To the extent that God has communicated His infallibility to the Pope and to the extent that the Pope intends to use this infallibility, which involves four very precise conditions in its exercise, there can be no failure.
Outside of these precisely fixed conditions, the authority of the Pope is fallible and so the criteria, which bind us to obedience, apply to his acts. Hence it is not inconceivable that there could be a duty of disobedience with regard to the Pope.
The authority, which was granted him, was granted him for precise purposes and in the last resort for the glory of the Holy Trinity, for Our Lord Jesus Christ, and for the salvation of souls.
Whatever would be carried out by the Pope in opposition to this purpose would have no legal value and no right to be obeyed, nay, rather, it would oblige us to disobey in order for us to remain obedient to God and faithful to the Church.
This holds true for everything that the recent popes have commanded in the name of Religious Liberty or ecumenism since the Council: all the reforms carried out under this heading are deprived of any legal standing or force of law. In these cases the popes use their authority contrary to the end for which this authority was given them. They have a right to be disobeyed by us.
The Society and its history show publicly this need to remain faithful to God and to the Church. The years 1974, 1975 and 1976 leave us with the memory of this incredible clash between Econe and the Vatican, between the Pope and myself.
The result was the condemnation, the suspension a divinis, wholly null and void because the Pope was tyrannically abusing his authority in order to defend laws contrary to the good of the Church and to the good of souls.
These events are an historical application of the principles concerning the duty to disobey.
That clash was the occasion for a departure of a certain number of priests who were friends or members of the Society, who were scared by the condemnation, and did not understand the duty to disobey under certain circumstances. Since then, twelve years have passed. Officially, the condemnation still stands; relations with the Pope are still tense, especially as the consequences of this ecumenism are drawing us into an apostasy, which forced us to react vigorously. However, the announcement of consecration of bishops in June stirred Rome into action: it at last made up its mind to fulfill our request for an Apostolic Visitation by sending on November 11, 1987, Cardinal Gagnon and Msgr. Perl. As far as we were able to judge by the speeches and reflections of our Visitors, their judgment was very favorable indeed, and the Cardinal did not hesitate to attend the Pontifical Mass on December 8th, at Econe, celebrated by the prelate suspendeda divinis.
What can we conclude from all this except that our disobedience is bearing good fruit, recognized by the envoys of the authority, which we disobey? And here we are now confronted with new decisions to be taken. We are more than ever encouraged to give the Society the means it needs to continue its essential work, the formation of true priests of the holy, and Catholic, and Roman Church. That is to say, to give me successors in the episcopate.
Rome understands this need, but will the Pope accept these bishops from the ranks of Tradition? For ourselves it cannot be otherwise. Any other solution would be the sign that they want to align us with the Conciliar Revolution, and there our duty to disobey immediately revives. The negotiations are now under way and we shall soon know the true intentions of Rome. They will decide the future. We must continue to pray and to watch. May the Holy Ghost guide us through the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima!
+ Marcel Lefebvre
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - Last Sermon 1991 - To Express Our Love of God in Prayer |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 09:02 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
|
The Last Sermon of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
To Express Our Love of God in Prayer
His Grace offered his last Solemn High Mass and delivered his last sermon on this date.
Dom Guillou, traditional Priest of Nice, Benedictine Monk, died on May 19th, the Feast of Pentecost.
God rest their souls.
My dear brethren,
It is a great joy and a great satisfaction for me to be with you in this wonderful Church of St. Claire, which is filled with so many memories. Divine Providence chose the First Sunday of Lent for me to be among you. Allow me, therefore, to give you some advice in order that you practice this Lent well - Lent which is nothing other than the preparation for the beautiful Feast of Easter. Before becoming partakers in the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we must be partakers in His Passion, in His Redemption, in His Sacrifice.
Lent is undoubtedly a time of penance. Therefore, we must make some efforts to deny ourselves usual satisfactions - in eating, and drinking and the like. It is good to deny ourselves in these things in order to attach ourselves more to the spiritual goods, forgetting the temporal goods in order to elevate ourselves towards the eternal ones.
But more than by our penances, God is pleased by our observance of His Commandments. God created us to be with Him one day. The way that leads us to Him through the years that we have to spend here below is marked by His Law towards Him. His Law is in fact nothing else than the road signs, which Our Lord has placed along the way of our earthly life, leading us towards Heaven in order that we attain heavenly bliss.
What then are these Commandments of God? Our Lord Himself took care to remind us of them and St. Paul says the same thing as well. They consist in loving God and loving our neighbor. All the Commandments of God are summed up in this. In the very measure in which we love God and love our neighbor and put this love into practice in our daily lives are we walking peacefully towards the happiness of Heaven.
How can we manifest in a particular way our love towards the Good Lord? I think that the most profound, the most essential way to manifest our love to God is to pray. We have all learned to pray in our catechism, the little catechism of old - since today's catechisms have distorted everything and do not teach anything clearly. But we keep the good definition of old: prayer is an elevation of the soul towards God.
It is simple, it is short, but it is much - to lift up our soul towards God. I think that if we would put more in practice this definition of prayer, to lift up our soul towards God, we would indeed be less attached to the goods of this earth and we would be more attached to God Himself and to the heavenly goods.
Therefore let us make an effort during this Lent to pray better and to pray more.
And what are the different ways to pray? What are the different kinds of prayer?
First, there is vocal prayer: that which you do here during Mass, during the prayers in common, the Rosary you said together just a while ago. These are vocal prayers, in which you express your love for God and through which you lift up your souls towards God. Therefore we must hold in high esteem this kind of prayer and practice it much. We do so in particular by assistance at Mass and also when we can by the recitation of the Rosary, praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary, uniting ourselves to her, and by all the practices of vocal prayers, all the devotions approved by the Church, which all the devout souls have practiced in their lives, these souls which have gone to Heaven before us and are now singing the praise of the Good Lord in Heaven, in particular all the saints.
The second kind of prayer is mental prayer or meditation. Mental prayer consists in lifting up our mind towards the Good Lord by meditating on the grandeur of God, on His perfections, without pronouncing exterior words. It is another kind of prayer. When you come during the day and adore the Blessed Sacrament, close to Our Lord, without the need of words, lifting your soul to the Good Lord, submitting yourselves to Him, thinking of Him, living with Him for a while, forgetting the worries of this world, daily worries, in order to elevate your soul towards God, you practice mental prayer. Spiritual directors, all the saints and founders of Orders recommend it. You well know that the good Poor Clares who were here before - behind these grilles - spent a long time in mental prayer. The same is done in all the Carmels, in all the religious congregations. Even the rules for the clergy required of priests, monks and nuns the practice of mental prayer. It is good also for the faithful to imitate those who have consecrated themselves to God and to practice mental prayer in a special way. You can do it in a church, in a chapel, but also at home in front of a statue of the Virgin, in front of a Crucifix, or a little home oratory that you may have arranged in your home. Everyone can pray to Our Lord and unite himself with the Blessed Virgin Mary in his mind.
There is a third kind of prayer which is essential, and which is the most important, beside vocal and mental prayer: the prayer of the heart.
What is the prayer of the heart? It is that which shows internally love for the Good Lord, without even a particular thought on this or that subject, such as this perfection of God, or that manifestation of the charity of God towards us. But to simply love God, to express our love to the Good Lord. It is somewhat like a little child in his mother's arms, like to what he has in his heart for his mommy and daddy. He is happy - he is in his father's arms or his mother's arms. He does not think of anything else. He thinks only of loving his parents. Well, we should have such a natural, profound and constant love for the Good Lord. This prayer is the most pleasing to God because it places us entirely at His disposal. By it, we offer our whole self to God. We offer our body, our will, our time and all that we are to Him Who created us, to Him who awaits us, to give us this heavenly bliss which He has prepared for us. This is the best way not to sin any more, at least not to sin grievously. He who truly loves God gives in a way his very being and all that he is throughout the day and at all times. This prayer of the heart can be permanent, without stopping. As a child who loves his parents loves them always, with a perfect continuity, so we should love the Good Lord in a similar way. In loving God this way we will not fear sin because we will feel that any disobedience to God will draw us apart from Him. Thus, if we truly love Him how could we, at the same time, love Him without our whole heart and displease and disobey Him? This would be a contradiction. This is why the prayer of the heart is so important.
I beg you, during this Lent, to put yourselves into the hands of the Good Lord, to forget the things of this world in order to attach yourselves to the Good Lord. This is the first advice I will give you to fulfill the Law of the Good Lord asking us to love Him. The first Tablet of the Law of Moses had these three Commandments towards God. The second Tablet shows us the law of the love of our neighbor. How can we manifest our love for our neighbor? Undoubtedly the services we render to our neighbor outside our families, in our profession, in our daily lives, but we could also ask ourselves where we most frequently fail to love our neighbor.
To this end let us ask St. James who, in the epistle he wrote and which belongs to Holy Scripture, tells us of this little organ given to us by the Good Lord called the "tongue." He tells us: "It is with the tongue that one sings the praises of the Good Lord but it is with the tongue that one ignites the fires of iniquity and the fires of division." This is true.
Therefore let us make an effort to practice charity in our words and by this very fact charity in our thoughts. Thus let us avoid rash judgments, detractions, and calumnies, which are so easy and sometimes so tempting in our conversations. Unfortunately, some love to criticize this or that, dividing rather than uniting, rather than practicing charity. Let us make efforts to manifest the love towards our neighbor during this Lent by striving to avoid detractions and calumnies - all the sins of the tongue. Such is, my dear brethren, the advice I deem good to give at the beginning of this Lent.
Let us ask the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph and the Child Jesus to live as they lived at Nazareth. We must remember that the example Our Lord has given us is absolutely remarkable. What did God Himself - for He is God Who came down among us - do during the thirty-three years of His life? Of these thirty-three years He spent here below before ascending into Heaven, He remained thirty years in family life except when, leaving His parents, He remained at Jerusalem to teach the Doctors of the Law. This is the only event we know of His infancy or His youth. Until the age of thirty He practiced charity in the family. This is an admirable example Our Lord gave us.
Therefore He does not ask us things, which are utterly impossible - no, just the practice of charity towards God and towards our neighbor, as He Himself has done in the family of Nazareth.
Let us ask the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph to help us to practice this Charity so that, by the grace of the Good Lord, by the grace of the Sacraments which we receive, we may walk little by little towards the goal of our life here below: to share one day the happiness of Heaven with all those whom we love and who have left us.
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - Ordination Sermon 1985 - 'Back to Pagan Rome by Ecumenism' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2020, 08:59 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Angelus - July 1985
The Archbishop Speaks
The Sermon of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on the Occasion of Ordinations to the Priesthood
29 June 1985 at Écône
My dear friends, we are gathered here again under the patronage of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, martyrs. How can we not turn our thoughts and our hearts to Rome—Rome, which this first pope and this great apostle watered with their blood, along with so many other martyrs. With what feeling we read this morning in the Breviary the lessons from Pope St. Leo, who addresses this city Rome. O Roma, he says, quae eras magistra erroris, facta es discipula veritatis. "O Rome, once the teacher of error, you are now the servant of truth." What beautiful words: servant of truth. He adds that this city Rome once collected all errors of all nations. Omnium gentium erroribus serviebat: Rome seemed to be at the service of the errors of all nations, of all gods, collected in Rome. And Rome imagined she had a great religion, St. Leo goes on to say, a magnum religionem, precisely because she had brought all religions together in her bosom.
These words of St. Leo, which describe ancient, pagan Rome, make us reflect on the situation today in Rome. What does Rome think of us, gathered here together today, to celebrate, attend, and participate in these ordinations to the priesthood? We know something of this from the book that has just appeared by Cardinal Ratzinger. He speaks of us. And what does he say of us? He says he is surprised that the Society of St. Pius X should be so attached to the popes (this is really a great consolation for us) before the Council, and yet should have such serious reservations toward the popes after the Council. If we are so attached to the papacy, why do we make such distinctions among popes? But he answers his own question, in his own book. The interviewer asks him: "Your Eminence, do you think something has changed in the Church since the 1960's?" And the Cardinal answers, "Yes, something has in fact changed since the 1960's." That is to say, since Vatican II. And what is this change? It consists in adopting the values of the world, the values of liberalism. These have been adopted by the Church. That is what he says.
We reject these liberal values which have been introduced into the Church by Vatican II and the postconciliar reform. We absolutely reject them—precisely in order to obey the popes and the Church of all time. All the popes have condemned these compromises, these errors of the world, because they are contrary to our holy religion. And what is the most monumental error? The greatest error is to accept the equality of all religions, the validity of all religions.
Recall the words of St. Leo which I just quoted: "Rome was thought to have a great religion because she united all religions in the world in her bosom." So now they are hoping to go back to pagan Rome by this ecumenism which is drawing together all religions. And this is not imagination. The Vatican sent official delegates for the laying of the cornerstone of the great mosque which is being built within the city limits of Rome. The Pope himself, you remember, went to a Lutheran church in Rome, to pray with the Protestants, thus recognizing this false religion, invented by the devil. And what about the eulogy of Martin Luther at the time of his fifth centenary, the eulogy of the most abominable heresiarch that humanity has ever produced, who destroyed the unity of Christendom? There you have the situation.
This is why, since the Council, something has changed, something new introduced into the Church, something we reject. And we know this has been introduced especially by the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians. Cardinal Bea, President of this Secretariat, had official, public contact—known to the whole world—with the Freemasons of New York, with B'nai B'rith. The B'nai B'rith asked him to introduce into the Catholic Church the freedom of all religions. The popes have always defended religious freedom, i.e., of the true religion, of the religion of Our Lord Jesus Christ—but not the freedom of all religions, and therefore of all errors. Now this is what Cardinal Bea introduced into the Church by means of the Decree on Religious Freedom. The result is that Cardinal Bea received the gold medal for religious freedom from this Masonic group, composed entirely of Jews. I think we need no more proof; the evidence is clear enough. Freemasonry wanted to introduce into the Church this false notion of religious freedom to destroy the truth of the Church.
Why did they persecute Peter and Paul and all the martyrs? Because they were Christians, because they born the name of Christian, because they were disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and because these disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ claimed this religion to be the only true one. And it was in the process of converting all followers of false religions, false gods and false cults to the one true religion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. So the name of Christian became hated by all the disciples of these religions. And the emperors, protectors of these false religions, persecuted all Christians, because they said, "We are the only true religion." If anyone wants to go to heaven, to save his soul, he must be converted to Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the first and most fundamental truth that Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us. And because Jesus Christ is God, this is our religion. This is our truth.
And this is our trouble with Rome, dear friends. If you want to know why these troubles with Rome, it is because we reject ecumenism, because we reject the freedom of all religions, because we have only one God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who reigns with the Father and the Holy Ghost, world without end. We repeat this in all our prayers: there is only one God, Jesus Christ, Who lives and reigns with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, world without end. And clearly for this reason we are persecuted by all the devotees of false religions. We are persecuted today—we, you— members of the Society or not of the Society—who defend these truths, who defend this truth of the Christian religion. You are not ecumenical, so you are not allowed in our Catholic churches, which were built for the Christian religion, to honor Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only God, the only Savior, by His Cross, by His Sacrifice. We are driven out of these churches because we reject the idea that all religions are equal. You know perfectly well this is true. They receive Protestants, Moslems, in our churches. They receive Freemasons, they give Communion to anyone at all, in our churches, in Catholic churches, built for the one true religion. So it is now normal that we are driven out of our churches. We can no longer pray there and continue worshipping as we once did in our churches. And so if we cannot go into the churches, we will keep the faith! We will keep the faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
And now I address a few words to you, my dear friends, who will in a few minutes receive the grace of ordination to the priesthood. You know you will receive three powers reserved to priests: potestas praedicandi (docendi), potestas sanctificandi, potestas regendi: the power to preach the truth of the gospel, the power to sanctify, and the power to direct and guide souls, like shepherds. These are the three powers you are going to receive. And these three powers will make you into other Christs. Whom do you preach? Jesus Christ. By whom do you sanctify? By Jesus Christ. How, by whom do you direct souls? By Christ, like Christ, in Christ. Totally united to Our Lord Jesus Christ. From now on your whole life will be united to His: no gray areas, no compromises with error, no compromises with false religions. You are the shepherds who must lead souls to eternal life by Our Lord Jesus Christ. These are the powers of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself you are about to receive. To preach Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is just what the apostles and all Christians did, but especially those who were anointed as priests and charged with preaching the gospel of truth. And what is the truth. It is Christ Himself. There is no other truth than that Jesus Christ is the Son of God—the only way to salvation, the only means of saving souls. You will preach Our Lord, Whom you have come to know in these years at the seminary. All your studies have been directed to knowledge of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Philosophy, theology, canon law, liturgy, the Fathers of the Church—all the studies you have pursued, whatever they have been, have been to help you know, love and serve Our Lord Jesus Christ better.
You have prayed before the altar, prayed to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to share in His life, by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by Holy Communion. Now you have been chosen by Our Lord Himself, to pronounce the words of consecration. What a sublime and extraordinary power! This is the joy and consolation of your priestly life, the power of your priestly souls—to have power over the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. When you encounter suffering, when you have doubts, hesitations, trials—because perhaps your preaching does not bear the fruits you hoped for—look to Our Lord Jesus Christ. Look at His Cross, look at His Passion. He too suffered. He endured the desertion, the total abandonment of His disciples. He endured courageously, and God rewarded Him by raising Him up. He raised Him by the power of His divinity.
And then you will sanctify, particularly by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, source of all sanctification, continuation of the salvific sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is what the Mass is, and this is why you are being ordained, to lead souls to Christ, to celebrate this sacrifice, to pour grace out in abundance to save souls. This is a great mystery, this power given to us, creatures that we are, to be able to speak to God, to bring God down on the altar—Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Who is God.
And you will sanctify by all the sacraments. You will prepare souls to receive the sacraments worthily. You will not give Communion to those who are not worthy. You will prepare souls so that they may be worthy to be united to Our Lord Jesus Christ. By the sacrament of baptism, the sacrament of the Eucharist, by the sacrament of penance, by confirmation, by all the sacraments, prepare souls to sanctify themselves in the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep the Commandments, Commandments which are only the love of God and love of neighbor. What a beautiful vocation! To bring souls nearer to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to incorporate them into the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the mystical body of the Church, and to prepare them to share some day in the glory of God, in the glory of Our Lord.
And finally, you will guide souls in their anxieties, in their difficulties; in their darkness, you will be their light. Vos estis lux mundi. You are the light of the world. And so you will be light—in charity, in patience, in generosity, in gentleness. You will listen to souls who come to you to receive light. Do not reject them. Be patient. Be kindly. Be solicitous. Be fathers to your people. These souls who come to you will seem to be coming to Our Lord Jesus Christ, and will look for an answer for the good of their souls. So you will do good throughout your life.
You are about to separate and go to your assignments all over the world. May the Blessed Virgin Mary go with you. May she be your mother. May she nourish in you this unique, profound and all-sufficient love, with no more hesitations—this love of Our Lord Jesus Christ—as apostles of Christ.
In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - Charity Remains Forever |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-27-2020, 09:07 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
Charity Remains Forever
Sermon delivered Saturday 17th May, vigil of Pentecost, 1975
by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
My dear friends, my dear brethren: It seems to me that a day such as this could not be better chosen for the conferral of ordinations. If all the Sacraments give the Holy Ghost, it is indeed true and accurate to say that the Sacrament of Ordination confers the Holy Ghost in a very special way upon those who, in the future, will be called upon to pour Him forth, to give Him to souls in the Sacraments which it will be their duty to bestow on the souls confided to their care. Therefore we rejoice today to be able to give the Sacrament of Ordination to the diaconate to one of our seminarians, as well as Ordination to the minor orders: to the two first minor orders, and the second two minor orders.
And we shall take advantage of these few moments to speak to you of what the Feast of Pentecost suggests to us. Let us attempt to imagine to ourselves what the day of the Ascension may have been like, and the moment when Our Lord ascended into heaven. The Apostles, seeing Our Lord ascend towards heaven and disappear in the clouds, kept their eyes fixed on heaven. . . and we can easily understand them. These men who had lived with Our Lord must certainly have had this sentiment - I should say, this instinct, if one may say so, to know and to understand that they had had in their presence heaven itself. For what is heaven if not Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Word of God? They did indeed, then, have heaven in their very hands, after a fashion: they could taste it! And this presence of Our Lord beside them must have enchanted them, and given them an unalterable peace and serenity, an absolute confidence.
But now Our Lord escapes from their view and disappears. And that is why their eyes remained fixed on the heavens. Angels came to say to them, "What are you doing here? Why are you waiting? One day Jesus will return even as He has ascended." So the Apostles gathered in the Cenacle to await the coming of the Holy Ghost. For that is what Our Lord wished to give them. Heaven had disappeared from their eyes and almost from their hearts. Now it is indeed heaven that Our Lord wished to give them, and to give them through the Holy Ghost: for He is nothing other than that. The Holy Ghost in our hearts, this is heaven in our hearts... paradise begun in our souls! If we understood well who the Holy Ghost is and the grace which God gives us through the Holy Ghost from the day of our Baptism, and in all the Sacraments we receive, and especially in Holy Communion, we should understand that it is heaven that we receive.
The Apostles were filled with the Spirit of Jesus at the moment of Pentecost, and thus heaven took possession of their souls, and of their hearts, and never again did they separate themselves from this Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus. They then understood all that Jesus had told them. They understood what heaven was in relation to earth, what the spirit was in relation to the flesh, what these ineffable goods, these eternal goods were next to temporal things. They understood - until then, they had not understood.
And what was the influence of the Holy Ghost in their souls? Saint Paul describes it for us twice - once when he enumerates the different fruits of the Holy Ghost in souls. I will not list them all for you, but he speaks of patience, kindness, meekness, peace: fruits of the Holy Ghost in our hearts. And he repeats it when he speaks of the benefits of charity, the qualities of charity: Caritas benigna est, caritas patiens est; caritas omnia suffert, omnia credit, omnia sperat. Charity is patient, charity suffers, charity believes, charity hopes, charity loves. . .charity remains forever. This is what Saint Paul enumerates and what he describes of charity and the fruits of the Holy Ghost. And that is what the Holy Ghost is; it is in that that we recognize whether we have the Holy Ghost in us - if we are humble, meek, charitable, peace-loving: these are the fruits that Our Lord gives to those who receive the Holy Ghost.
This Holy Ghost Whom we have within us: what does He give us? What does He inspire in us? Let us listen to what the Acts of the Apostles have to recount. The Acts of the Apostles say that, as soon as the Apostles had received the Holy Ghost, they spoke... they spoke. They had received tongues of fire which signed them, which marked them, which manifested the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them; but these tongues of fire designated nothing other than that henceforth they had hearts of fire - hearts of fire which forced them to speak. And speak of whom, of what? Of Our Lord Jesus Christ - for it is the Spirit of Jesus that they had received. -I shall send you my spirit. . . MY spirit." So it is the Spirit of Our Lord, and they spoke of Our Lord.
And the sentence perhaps the most characteristic of the discourse of Saint Peter when, filled with the Holy Ghost, he could not restrain himself from speaking, from preaching the Gospel, from preaching Our Lord to those who surrounded him. . . He said: "Non est in alio aliquo salus." "Non est nomen sub caelum datum hominibus per quem omnes salvi fieri debent." There is no other name by which we must be saved. There is no name other than that in which all men must receive salvation. This is the essential truth, the capital truth, the truth which summarizes all the truth of the Church. The Church was founded only for that: to bring salvation to souls through Our Lord Jesus Christ, in Our Lord Jesus Christ.
And consequently, it is the duty of the Church, and it will be your duty, my dear friends, the duty of each one of you, dear friends, when you are priests, when you will have the mission of preaching the Gospel, to preach the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is with that that the Holy Ghost inspired the Apostles: the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He is King! He has the right to reign. . .He has the right! And it is an historical fact - His presence in history can no longer be ignored by men; no man can ignore that Our Lord came to save him. And those who know that Our Lord came and, consequently, that God came among men to save us, must accept His reign: the reign of Our Lord. Not only His reign in individuals, in all persons; not only His reign in each one of us: but His reign in the family, in the home. . . but His reign in the State! Ah, here it is something much more difficult: to admit that Our Lord ought to reign over the nations. He is the King of all nations! He it is who will judge - who will judge all princes and kings. This is spoken of already in the Psalms.
And consequently we ought to be heroes of the kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That is what we must preach everywhere - that there will be no happiness here below without the kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ; that no good will be done here below without Our Lord Jesus Christ. We can do nothing without the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is He who is the source of all our meritorious acts. We can merit nothing whatsoever toward heaven if we have not in us the grace and spirit of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
These are truths which are evident for Christians, evident for the Church - but which men do not want to receive and which many Catholics no longer want to receive. They find it inadmissible to say that there is no salvation outside of the Church, that there is no salvation outside of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And quite recently, I read in the report of the episcopal synod that one could accept that there are possibilities of salvation through every religion. Now this is absolutely false, contrary to all the doctrine of the Church. There is NO possibility of salvation through a false religion, through an erroneous religion. There is salvific value only in the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently in the Catholic Church. And all those who are saved will always be saved through the Catholic Church, even if they are of other religions, even if they have lived in other religions. They cannot be saved, they cannot enter heaven unless through Our Lord Jesus Christ. There will be nothing in heaven other than the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ: that is obvious. How could anyone who is not a member of the Mystical Body go to heaven? For Our Lord Jesus Christ IS heaven! He is God, and God is heaven. Consequently whoever is not united to Our Lord will not be in heaven, will not go to heaven - no one who is not a member of the Mystical Body of Our Lord.
These are truths of which we must remind ourselves. And I believe that I can say for certain that if, unfortunately, our seminary and our work here are persecuted, it is precisely because we affirm these truths. Because the world no longer wants to hear these truths. And because one must conform oneself to ‘modern man,’ one must listen to ‘modern man.’ What is this ‘modern man’? Who is he? What does he represent, if not often the man who does not believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and who does not want to believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ. . .who refuses the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. . .who refuses His grace? Men no longer want to believe in the supernatural; they no longer want to believe in the grace of Our Lord. They now believe only in man - in man, who now by his science seems to want to govern the world in the place of God.
As for us, we affirm the contrary: the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We want Him to reign: and that is why we adore Him, and seek to adore Him in a manner worthy of Him, worthy of His presence in the Holy Eucharist. That is why we love our ceremonies, why we are attached to this Liturgy which truly expresses what we think in our hearts, what we think in the depths of our souls: that Jesus is present in the Holy Eucharist and that we honor Him as God. He is our King: He has the right to our reverences, He has the right to our genuflections, He has the right to our bows; He has the right to songs worthy of Him, worthy of heaven, which recall the chant of the angels. This is what we wish. We wish to honor Him also in our faith, in the doctrine we teach to the young men who come here to receive it: to receive the true faith, the doctrine which teaches us that God is everything and that man is nothing, that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation, and that He is the only means of salvation that we must preach to all those who wish to be saved.
This is what we affirm; this is what we believe. But that goes against the current of present-day ecumenism, which wants precisely to level this religion, to bring our Catholic religion down to the level of the Protestant religion and of other religions. That we shall never accept. . . never! There is no God other than Our Lord Jesus Christ. We know neither Luther nor Buddha nor those other heads of religions who are and were merely inspired by the devil to turn men away from the truth and from Our Lord Jesus Christ.
We want to consider Our Lord as our King. We want Him to reign in our homes, in our families, in our states. We shall never accept that, in our states, all religions be placed on the same level. Without doubt this is impossible to wish for at once; but we must retain the principle. Otherwise there are no more public rights for the Church: those public rights which give the Church powers in civil societies. The Church is a society which has powers in the civil society, which ought to be recognized by the civil society.
Certainly in our time, through the malice of men, these powers are no longer recognized, or very little. And alas, even in the countries where they are still recognized, these countries are persecuted by those who ought rather to defend them! Who armed the hand that killed Schussnig? Who armed the hand that killed Garcia Moreno? Who harasses Franco and who harassed Salazar when they were Christian men of state who wanted Our Lord to reign in their countries? They are the ones who are persecuted! They are the ones who are investigated! They are the ones who suffer assassination attempts! Because they want Our Lord to reign in their countries. Why was Joan of Arc burned? Because she wanted to establish the reign of Our Lord in our country, in the nation of France.
This is what we must think; this is what we must believe. And this persecution which we are undergoing today is nothing other than that; it must not be placed on any other plane. It is not on details that we are attacked. We are attacked because we want the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ; because we affirm as much, because we do all that this reign might be established - that the reign of God, the reign of Our Lord might be established, the reign as well of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is why we are persecuted; we know it well.
And particularly by those in the Church who collaborate with the enemy. Unfortunately among those who collaborate with the enemy there are some who have important posts in the Church and who, through their important posts, strive to compel us as well into this pact with the enemy; who try to draw us into compromises that are absolutely inadmissible and that are contrary to the royalty of Our Lord Jesus Christ, contrary to the honor of God, contrary to the honor of Our Lord and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And that we do not want... none of these intercommunions, for example, of ‘eucharistic hospitalities’ as they are now called. These are all blasphemies and sacrileges which we cannot accept.
"Quis ut Deus?" This is what we must say. "Quis ut Jesus Christus?" Who is like Our Lord Jesus Christ? This is what we must believe. This was the cry of Joan of Arc, the cry of Saint Michael the Archangel that she repeated, and it is this that we ought to repeat, that we ought to keep ever in our hearts.
Whatever the persecutions that we may undergo, we must remain united to Our Lord, united to the Blessed Virgin Mary; united to Our Holy Father the Pope, united to all the bishops of the Church. But perhaps sometimes, in being united to them, at the same time united against them in a certain manner, if they say things which are inadmissible. If on the one hand they say acceptable things and on the other hand they say inadmissible things, we shall be with them when they say admissible things, but we shall be against them when they say things which are inadmissible. For they are destroying themselves, and they are destroying the Church. And we want on the contrary to build up the Church, to construct it on the unchanging foundations, not on foundations of our own making; on foundations such as those of which I have just spoken to you, those which are inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have always been inspired by the Holy Ghost. Such is our desire. Indeed, our goal is none other than that.
And we ask today of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was filled with the Holy Ghost, to keep us ever in this faith, in this love, in this charity, in this unity. We are not seeking to add anything to the unchanging faith. If God gives us the grace to follow tradition, the grace to remain in the light of the Holy Ghost, we shall not take glory in this, but we shall pray that God grant that this light shall illumine once again, as of old, all the nations of Europe and the entire world.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
+Marcel Lefebvre on Pentecost Sunday, 1975
Ecône, Switzerland
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - Various Works in English |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-27-2020, 08:45 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
|
Various Works of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - online format
Books
Archbishop Lefebvre & the Vatican - A complete set of the documents exchanged between Rome and Archbishop Lefebvre in the time leading up to and immediately following the episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988 - Compiled by Rev. Fr. François Laisney
An Open Letter to Confused Catholics - complete book by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre -Volumes I, II and III
1993
The New Catechism (January 12, 1993)
1991
Remarks with Respect to the New Bishop to Succeed His Excellency Bishop de Castro Mayer (February 20, 1991)
To Express Our Love of God in Prayer The Last Sermon of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (February 17, 1991)
Archbishop Lefebvre and Padre Pio
1990
Letter to Bishop de Castro Mayer (December 4, 1990)
Truth, Justice & the News Media (May 12, 1990)
1989
Archbishop's Sermon on his 60th Anniversary of Ordination (November 19, 1989)
Sermon for the Feast of Christ the King (October 29, 1989)
Ubi Maria Ibi Ecclesia (May 14, 1989)
1988
Schism and Monsignor Lefebvre (November 1988) -by Rev. T.C.G. Glover
Episcopal Consecrations (June 30, 1988) - Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre
The Sermon On the Occasion of Ordinations to the Holy Priesthood (June 29, 1988)
Episcopal Consecrations:Recommendations to the Four Bishops Elect (June 12, 1988)
Episcopal Consecrations: Recommendations to the Four Bishops Elect (June 13, 1988)
Letter to His Holiness John Paul II (June 2, 1988)
The Episcopal Consecrations: A Decision and Explanatory Documents (June 15, 1988)
A Sermon for Pentecost (May, 1988)
Conference at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (May 5, 1988)
Can Obedience Oblige Us to Disobey? (March 29, 1988)
1987
Sermon of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre On His Fourtieth Anniversary As a Bishop (Oct. 3, 1987)
Letter to the Future Bishops On the Feast of St. Augustine (August 29, 1987)
Bishops to save the Church (June 29, 1987) - Sermon at the Priestly ordinations in Ecône
Pastoral Lenten Letter (January 25, 1987)
Disobedience (1987)
1986
Twenty Years of Struggle (September, 1986)
Letter to Each of Eight Cardinals (August 27, 1986)
On the Occasion of the Reception of the Sacrament of Confirmation (20 April 1986)
Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre at Campbell, California (January 5, 1986)
Interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (January, 1986)
1985
What is a Carmel? (Nov. 13, 1985)
A Letter to His Holiness Pope John Paul II (August 31, 1985)
On the Occasion of Ordinations at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (May 17,1985)
1984
In Conformity to God's Will (December 13, 1984) - Conference given to the priests of the District of France, at St. Nicholas du Chardonnet, Paris
The Church, The Priesthood and the Tridentine Indult (Oct. 29, 1984)
The New Code of Canon Law (March 24, 1984) - Conference given in Turin, Italy
1983
The Archbishop's Press Conference (December 9, 1983) -Conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre to focus light on the Episcopal Manifesto of November 21
An Episcopal Manifesto: (Nov. 21, 1983) -Two Bishops write to the Pope
Conference Of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (November 5, 1983)
On the Occasion of the Episcopal Consecration of Several Priests of the Society of St. Pius X (19 October 1983)
The declaration of Religious Liberty reduces the Church to the status of equality with false religions
A Message of Importance To American Friends & Benefactors (April 28, 1983)
Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 24 (March 7, 1983)
The Case for the Defence (1983) -by Michael Davies
1982
The Infiltration of Modernism in the Church (1982) -the Archbishop's personal experience of the tragic corruption of modernism
1981
Sermon for the Feast of Our Lady of Compassion (April 10, 1981)
1980
On the Occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of the Society of St. Pius X (1 November 1980)
Letter To Friends & Benefactors, No. 19 (October 1, 1980)
Sermon on the Occasion of the Ordinations To The Holy Priesthood, Ecône (27 June 1980)
Letter to Friends & Benefactors, No. 18 (April 13, 1980)
What is Happening In The Church? A Sermon delivered at the Church of St. Simon Piccolo, Venice (April 7, 1980)
1979
Sermon to the Seminarians of Albano on their Entrance into the SSPX (Dec. 8, 1979)
Sermon the Feast Of Christ The King (28 October 1979)
Jubilee Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre (Sept. 23, 1979)
On the Feast of the Assumption during the Angelus Pilgrimage (15 August 1979)
The 1979 Ordination Sermon (June 29, 1979)
Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 16 (March 19,1979)
1978
Interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1978)
The reality of purgatory and how we can help the souls there (Nov. 1, 1978)
On the Occasion of the Ordination of 28 Deacons (October 29,1978)
Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 15 (September 8, 1978)
Archbishop Lefebvre On the Conclave (August 28, 1978)
Article in Il Gionale di Bergamo regarding ordinations (June 29,1978)
Sermon at the Ordination of 18 priest and 22 sub-deacons (June 29, 1976)
Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 14 (May 1, 1978)
Sermon Delivered on Pentecost (1978)
Sermon Delivered on Easter Sunday (March 26, 1978)
1977
Three Great Gifts of God (September 18, 1977)
Real and Apparent Disobedience (September 3, 1977)
Tota Pulchra es, Maria, et Macula Originalis non est in te (December 8, 1977)
Sermon On the Occasion of the Profession of Three Sisters (April 17, 1977)
Fidelity (April 10, 1977)
1976
Sermon On the Occasion of Engagements in the Society of St. Pius X (Dec. 8, 1976)
Excerpts from a Sermon on the Occasion of the First Solemn High Mass of Father Denis Roch - (July 4,1976)
Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre on the Feast of Corpus Christi (June 17, 1976)
Sermon at the Ordination of 13 priest and 13 sub-deacons (June, 1976)
The Ordinations of June 29, 1976 -by Michael Davies
Sermon Before an Association of Catholic Families in Southern France (May 2, 1976)
1975
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (November 1975)
Devotion to the mystery of the Cross (September, 14 1975) - Sermon on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
The true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ (September 8, 1975)
Twenty fifth Anniversary of the Promulgation of the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (August 15, 1975)
Charity Remains Forever (Vigil of Pentecost, 1975)
Luther's Mass (February 15, 1975)
1974
The Campaign against Ecône, part I (1974)
To Preserve the Faith (Pentecost Sunday, 1974)
The Declaration of November 21, 1974
1973
Homily on the Feast of the Epiphany (7 January 1973)
1972
Feast of The Immaculate Conception (December 8, 1972)
1949
Confronting Godlessness (February 24, 1949)
Source
|
|
|
|
| "Cor Divisa" - A Heart Divided |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-27-2020, 08:41 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- Replies (1)
|
|
From a previous member on the 'Archived' Catacombs site:
Many know in Tradition the bio of the great Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre both of his family life and his service to the Catholic Church. Exemplary in fact. With his many achievements in the mission field, he was also elected as a Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers on July 26, 1962. Their Motto being: "Cor unum et anima una" - "One heart and one soul".
Quote:Excerpt:
Abp. Lefebvre first instituted a major reform of the seminaries run by the Holy Ghost Fathers. He transferred several Modernist (relativistic, liberal) professors to non-educational posts. He ordered books by certain modern theologians, including Yves Congar and Marie-Dominique Chenu, to be removed from the seminary library, finding them too Neo-Modernistic. (One book of Chenu was inserted into the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in the 1942.[4])
Lefebvre was increasingly criticized by influential pro-reform members of his large religious congregation who considered him out-of-step with modern Church leaders and the demand of bishops' conferences, particularly in France, for drastic revision and reform.[5] A general chapter of the Holy Ghost Fathers was convened in Rome in September 1968. The first action of the chapter was to name several moderators to lead the chapter's sessions instead of Lefebvre.[6] Finding it impossible to lead the congregation after being undermined, Lefebvre then handed in his resignation as Superior General to Pope Paul VI.[7]
He would later say that it had become impossible for him to remain Superior of an institute that no longer wanted him nor listened to him. To replace him, on October 28 a new superior general was elected who proved willing to allow the demands for reforms. Lefebvre's tenure as Superior saw the congregation at its zenith in terms of numbers, missions, and missionary activity. Lefebvre left the Holy Ghost Fathers and went on to found the Society of Saint Pius X in Écône (Diocese of Fribourg), Switzerland.
When under the leadership of Abp. Lefebvre (1962-1968), the Holy Ghost Father congregation increased greatly in benefit for the Church. As an FYI, he still has to date the most distinguished credentials within the congregation. After the Archbishop's time, the congregation suffered large losses like every other congregation ingesting the religion of man from Vatican II.
Yet, a different Heart was born two years later (1970) under the leadership again of Archbishop Lefebvre, in the blessed congregation of the Society of St. Pius X. Their running motto being "Cor-Unum" - One Heart.
Archbishop Lefebvre was the Founder and Superior General of the SSPX until 1982 giving the helm and appointment to Fr. Franz Schmidberger who served until 1994; he was succeeded by Bishop Bernard Fellay and present superior general.
After the death of the Archbishop (March 25, 1991), his congregation also took on the novelties and errors of Vatican II. Covertly at first by G.R.E.C. in 1994, just three years later, causing to date a massive split in the SSPX and civil war within Tradition. This happened under the present superior general (Bishop Fellay) who desires the same as the liberals in the Holy Ghost Fathers, to update, and conform to the norms of Vatican II.
What would the Archbishop say today of his SSPX congregation going into the revolution of Vatican II?
There is a common theme here. Under the solid Catholic faith and guidance of Archbishop Lefebvre "I have handed down what I have received", societies grow and blessing of God are manifest. History shows this all too well. God blesses what is of Himself.
Where ever God is, there is peace and abundance. Where there is modernism, there is discord and divide.
A heart cannot be in union with itself unless it beats the same love. St. Augustine show us what two loves do, and our Lord Himself said "Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." (Matthew 12)
Only those who hear the voice of the Shepherd can walk in the cleanliness of the heart.
Fortunately for the Catholic world, there are still a few SSPX son priests left residing within the OLMC Seminary who refuse to update into the revolution only to remain steadfast holding to the same Catholic faith, though greatly persecuted, yet continuing the legacy of the Church "I have handed down what I have received".
|
|
|
|
| How to Contact Us |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-26-2020, 08:48 AM - Forum: Welcome
- No Replies
|
|
Contact Us[
We can be reached in two ways:
1. By a PM or 'private message' [accessible for registered members only - button is located at the top right of the page once logged in].
2. By email [for both guests and members] at the following address: contact@thecatacombs.org
|
|
|
|
| The Rules |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-26-2020, 08:41 AM - Forum: Welcome
- No Replies
|
|
There are only three:
The Catacombs Forum Rules
1. In all posts, there will only be allowed a prevailing spirit of charity. Derisive or apparently deliberately provocative comments will be deleted by the administrator or moderators. Persistency in this regard may result in being banned from the forum. In this same vein, please keep to the thread topic.
2. Our focus is on defined Church teaching and in fighting the Modernist errors of our day. We promote the apostolates of those clergy who promulgate those doctrines and teachings. Promotion of clergy or laity who promote novel teachings is not allowed.
3. Movements and teachings undefined or previously condemned by the Catholic Church, i.e. sedevacantism or theories that contain any of the tenets of sedevacantism, are not to be debated here. Posts that promote such errors will be removed by the administrator or moderators. Persistency in this regard may result in being banned from the forum.
|
|
|
|
| Welcome to The Catacombs |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-26-2020, 08:38 AM - Forum: Welcome
- Replies (1)
|
|
Welcome to The Catacombs!
Following our Lord who said, “Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
We are Catholics born in the newest Catacomb within this grave crisis of the Church, stemming from the modernist revolution of Vatican II. A Revolution which has so encompassed and distorted the Catholic Faith throughout the four corners of the world so as to leave our Faith nearly obliterated. Our Lady had forewarned and lamented in La Salette and Fatima, “Souls will be lost…for not listening to my Son…His hand is heavy.”
The Catacombs Forum is but another voice rising from the underground of this crisis, hoping to imitate Our Lord in His example in choosing to come into this world from the lowly manger in the Cave. Born in nothing…to herald the greatness of His Father,“Gloria in excelsis Deo: Glory to God in the Highest!”
This forum was created in view of serving the needs of those who desire to remain true to the Catholic Traditions that Our Holy Mother Church has taught and handed down, especially through the guidance of our Lord’s servant, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. "Tradidi quod et accepi: I have handed down what I have received."
Upon the Rock of Christ conviction is set. May God bless our little effort that we offer for Him and His beautiful Mother.
“Instaurare omnia in Christo: to Restore all things in Christ”
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - (Famous) Sermon at Lille 1976 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-26-2020, 07:30 AM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- Replies (1)
|
|
This is an account with important contextual information and with commentary interspersed throughout. The Sermon, in it's entirety, will follow this account.
The Mass at Lille
29 August 1976
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...%3DApi&f=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.thoRzZbbFOdiINHlZOvoHgHaFB%26pid%3DApi&f=1)
The Mass at Lille was an event of considerable importance. Firstly, it constituted in the most dramatic manner possible the response of the Archbishop to his suspension, the terms of which forbade him to celebrate Mass. Secondly, it enabled him to put his case to an audience of millions around the world. Thirdly, it was clearly as a result of the impact made by this Mass that the Pope felt obliged to receive the Archbishop despite repeated Vatican claims that this would never be done until he made an act of submission to the "Conciliar Church." Fourthly, the reporting of this Mass and its background provides one of the clearest instances of the extent to which the Catholic and secular press is prepared to go to misrepresent the Archbishop. Fortunately, I was present at the Mass with some friends and can thus provide a first-hand account of what took place. I also have the complete text of the Archbishop's controversial sermon and have had access to a professionally made recording which includes every word.
Among the allegations made concerning the Mass at Lille is that it was intended by the Archbishop as an act of public defiance, a huge public demonstration against the authority of the Holy See. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lille is, of course, in the Archbishop's own native region of France. He had been asked by some of his friends and relations to offer Mass there on 29 August and had agreed. It was to be a semi-private occasion for two or three hundred people at the most. But the media got to learn of the proposed Mass and began building it up into an act of contestation, a trial of strength between the Archbishop and the Pope. Then, as a result of this publicity, traditionalists from further afield got to know about the Mass and began to make inquiries about its venue as they wished to attend. This posed the organizers and the Archbishop himself with a problem as they had not made arrangements to cope with a congregation of more than a few hundred. The Archbishop 's decision was unequivocal-the arrangements that had been made were to stand and those from further afield were to be discouraged from coming. That this was indeed the case is also something to which I can add my personal testimony. After learning of the proposed Mass I had thought it might be appropriate to arrange for a few hundred British Catholics to go to Lille as a gesture of solidarity with Mgr. Lefebvre in the face of the Vatican sanctions. But I did not want to do this without being certain that there would be a public Mass with sufficient space for everyone wishing to attend. I arranged for a phone call directly to the Archbishop at Ecône and his personal reply was quite definite: the Mass was to be private, he did not want anyone from outside Lille to come, and anyone planning to do so should be discouraged. This was only one week before the Mass was scheduled to take place.
During the week before the Mass it became clear to the organizers that several thousand of the faithful were going to arrive whether the Archbishop wanted them to or not and so, at the last minute, they decided to hire the vast auditorium of the International Fair in Lille. This, they reckoned, would be more than sufficient to cope with any number that might arrive. This was reported in the British secular press on Saturday, 28 August, and so I made a last-minute decision to attend and, just before midnight, I left London's Victoria Station on the boat train with just one friend.
We met a few more traditionalists on the boat and arrived at Lille early on Sunday morning. On our way to the International Fair we were most impressed by the zeal and organization of the Lille Catholics. Stewards with arm-bands were strategically posted along the route to indicate the way and coaches had been laid on for those who felt unable to walk. There were very few police in evidence -a dozen or so traffic police at the most. When we reached the perimeter of the large grounds in which the Fair is situated a steady stream of cars had already begun to arrive. However, when I entered the huge auditorium I feared that an error of judgment had been made. A local paper which I had bought at the station gave the seating capacity as 10,000 and there was clearly room for several thousand people to stand. Under the circumstances a congregation of 4,000 would have been a remarkable gesture of support for the Archbishop-but such a number would have appeared lost in this vast hall. I could already envisage the line the press-the Catholic press in particular-would take. The headlines would read: HALL ONLY HALF FULL FOR LEFEBVRE MASS. However, as the time for the Mass drew nearer the line of cars and procession of pedestrians grew more and more dense and, having waited outside for a friend coming by car, I found that at about 10:45 all the seats had been taken, the standing space was packed and it appeared that I would not be able to get into the auditorium. I managed to insert myself into a jam-packed mass of people which was literally inching its way along a corridor towards the auditorium. A number of young stewards did their best to persuade those inside to cram themselves up even more closely to allow a few more in. At least one report claimed that the stewards were Gestapo types wearing jackboots! I can testify that all those I saw were extremely inoffensive looking young men wearing leisure suits and that I did not notice a single jackboot anywhere in the congregation! A Soviet paper reported the presence of thousands of Italian fascists although, newspaper reporters apart, there did not appear to be a single Italian present.
The Archbishop's enemies have also spared no effort to publicize the fact that the journals of extreme right-wing political groups were being sold outside the auditorium; including Aspects de la France-the journal of Action franscaise. What the papers did not point out is that on at least three occasions before the Mass an announcement was made that the Archbishop did not want any literature sold outside the auditorium and that if this was done it would be in opposition to his wishes. 'When this matter was raised during a press conference given by the Archbishop on 15 September 1976 (the full text of which was published in ltineraires of December 1976) he made the following points: he was displeased at the fact that Aspects de la France had been sold outside the auditorium at Lille; he did not read this journal; he did not know those who produced it; he had never met Charles Maurras;1 he had not even read his works; and he was thus ignorant of his political philosophy.
It needs to be appreciated that political attitudes in France cannot be assessed on the basis of attitudes in English-speaking countries. In France political feeling tends to be more polarized, more extreme, and far more deeply felt than in England. It can only be understood in the light of the French Revolution and subsequent history -particularly the inter-war period and the German occupation. At the risk of a serious over-simplification, it is reasonable to state that up to the Second World War Catholicism in France tended to be identified with right-wing politics and anti-Catholicism with the left. Since the war, and especially since Vatican II, the official French Church has veered sharply to the left and has adopted all the postures identified with the Liberal consensus which is accepted throughout the West, e. g. on the virtues of the Viet Cong and the evils of capitalism. Thus, a large proportion of right-wing Catholics was predisposed to support any religious movement opposed to the policies of the French hierarchy. The political views of some of the French Catholics who support the Archbishop would certainly be odious to many English-speaking traditionalists - although such views are more understandable (if not acceptable) within the French context. However, if they wish to support the Archbishop (and not necessarily for the right reasons) there is nothing he can do about it. His own alleged right-wing political philosophy is nothing more than straight-forward Catholic social teaching as expounded by the Popes for a century or more. Those familiar with this teaching need only read his book A Bishop Speaks to see at once that his so-called "political" utterances are no more than paraphrases of teaching contained in papal encyclicals. The French hierarchy has replaced this social teaching with diluted Marxism to such an extent that anyone adopting the Catholic position is now automatically accused of fascism. Whenever the Archbishop is accused of intermingling the traditional faith and right-wing politics a demand should be made that chapter and verse be provided to substantiate the allegation. The almost invariable Liberal response will be to ignore such a demand but, if a reply is given, it will be found that what is being objected to is the consistent teaching of the Popes.
What should be quite obvious is that Mgr. Lefebvre cannot prevent anyone who wishes to support him from doing so.
It is quite certain that there is no formal link whatsoever between Mgr. Lefebvre and any political party in any country. He has a right to his own political views, so have his priests, so have those who support him. But support for the Archbishop does not involve adherence to any political standpoint, only to the traditional faith, the traditional liturgy, and the social teaching of the Popes.
The congregation at Lille certainly represented a balanced cross-section of French society. In its 31 August issue, Le Monde, which has never attempted to disguise its hostility towards the Archbishop, commented on the make-up of the congregation in terms which coincided exactly with my own impression. Contrary to reports that the atmosphere of the Mass was political rather than religious, the report affirmed that for the vast majority of those present it was "an act of piety, a gesture of solidarity with a bishop who was the object of sanctions, a gesture of fidelity to the traditional Church… Men were in a definite majority, there were large numbers of young people, and entire families with their children ...the general impression was of a normal parish congregation with a far from negligible proportion of workers."
The same report adds that everyone from Lille seemed to know what was going on. The duty clerk in the ticket office at the station told Le Monde 's reporter: "I'm broken-hearted at not being free to go to the Mass. I'm 100 per cent behind Mgr. Lefebvre. I haven't put a foot inside my parish church for ages because of the clowning that goes on there; they don't get so much as a sou (cent) out of me any more." On the way to the Mass his taxi driver also declared himself to be a strong supporter of Mgr. Lefebvre.
The extent of the Archbishop's support in France was made clear in an opinion poll published earlier in the month by the newspaper Progres de Lyon and reported in The Times on 14 August. It revealed that while 28 per cent of Catholics approved of the Archbishop's stand only 24 per cent opposed it, the rest being indifferent or unwilling to express an opinion. In typical fashion, the London Universe (England's largest-circulation Catholic weekly) withheld the figures from its readers and informed them that the poll had revealed that the great majority of French Catholics "are more concerned about matters other than Mgr. Lefebvre." Similarly, among the glaring inaccuracies in its report on the Mass at Lille it claimed that there were 200 riot police on duty at the Mass -there was not a riot policeman in sight and that the sermon carried hints of anti-semitism when, in fact, there was not a single phrase in the whole sermon referring to the Jews, even indirectly.
The Mass at Lille was celebrated with immense fervor and great dignity. A report in Le Monde remarked on Mgr. Lefebvre's serenity and tranquil dignity despite the strain he must have been undergoing since his suspension. The volume and quality of the congregational participation in the sung parts of the Mass -with more than twelve thousand Catholics from at least six countries singing una voce, with one voice, and broadcast to millions on TV and radio, provided the most effective possible rebuttal to the nonsensical claim that the traditional Mass provides an obstacle to congregational participation.
The complete text of the sermon will not be given here. Most of it is simply a restatement of points made in other sermons contained in this book and it is extremely long - about 8,500 words. Under the circumstances, particularly the overcrowding in the hall, a much shorter sermon might have been far more effective. But the Archbishop, clearly affected by the emotional nature of the occasion and the frequent applause from the congregation, probably went on for a much longer time than he had intended. He makes no secret of the fact that his sermons are not written before-hand. He begins with a few ideas of what he would like to say and carries on from there, with the result that he sometimes makes remarks which had not been planned and which, perhaps, he might rather not have made. However, lest it be alleged that this sermon has been omitted to cover up some of the controversial passages in it, these passages will be quoted in full, together with some other important passages.
The Archbishop began his sermon as follows:
Quote:My Dear Brethren,
Before addressing a few words of exhortation to you, I should like first to dispel some misunderstandings. And to begin with, about this very gathering.
You can see from the simplicity of this ceremony that we made no preparations for a ceremony which would have gathered a crowd like the one in this hall. I thought I should be saying Holy Mass on the 29 August as it had been arranged, before a few hundreds of the faithful of the Lille region, as I have done often in France, Europe, and even America, with no fuss.
Yet all of a sudden this date, 29 August, through press, radio and television, has become a kind of demonstration, resembling, so they say, a challenge. Not at an: this demonstration is not a challenge. This demonstration is what you wanted, dear Catholic brethren, who have come from long distances. Why? To manifest your Catholic faith; to manifest your belief; to manifest your desire to pray and to sanctify yourselves as did your fathers in faith, as did generations and generations before you. That is the real object of this ceremony, during which we desire to pray, pray with all our heart, adore Our Lord Jesus Christ Who in a few moments will come down on this altar and will renew the sacrifice of the Cross which we so much need.
I should like also to dispel another misunderstanding. Here I beg your pardon, but I have to say it: it was not I who called myself head of the traditionalists. You know who did that not long ago in solemn and memorable circumstances in Rome. Mgr. Lefebvre was said to be the head of the traditionalists. I do not want to be head of the traditionalists, nor am I. Why? Because I also am a simple Catholic. A priest and a bishop, certainly; but in the very conditions in which you find yourselves, reacting in the same way to the destruction of the Church, to the destruction of our faith, to the ruins piling up before our eyes.
Having the same reaction, I thought it my duty to form priests, the true priests that the Church needs. I formed those priests in a "Saint Pius X Society," which was recognized by the Church. All I was doing was what all bishops have done for centuries and centuries. That is all I did -something I have been doing for thirty years of my priestly life. It was on that account that I was made a bishop, an Apostolic Delegate in Africa, a member of the central pre-conciliar commission, an assistant at the papal throne. What better proof could I have wanted that Rome considered my work profitable for the Church and for the good of souls? And now when I am doing the same thing, a work exactly like what I have been doing for thirty years, all of a sudden I am suspended a divinis, and perhaps I shall soon be excommunicated, separated from the Church, a renegade, or what have you! How can that be? Is what I have been doing for thirty years liable also to suspension a divinis?
I think, on the contrary, that if then I had been forming seminarians as they are being formed now in the new seminaries I should have been excommunicated. If then I had taught the catechism which is being taught in the schools I should have been called a heretic. And if I had said Mass as it is now said I should have been called suspect of heresy and out of the Church. It is beyond my understanding. It means something has changed in the Church; and it is about that that I wish to speak.
The next passage to be cited evoked a great deal of unfavorable comment, principally because of the use of the word "bastard," particularly with reference to priests emerging from the reformed seminaries. Liberals were quick to seize upon this passage to imply that the Archbishop had intended to be personally offensive to these young priests. Nothing could be further from the truth. A careful reading of the controversial passage will show that the Archbishop was making a valid analogy and using the word with great precision. Unfortunately the word "bastard " sounds far more offensive in English than in French and for this reason I could wish that the Archbishop had found some other term for making his point.
As the text will make clear, he first takes up an image met with frequently in the Old Testament, and often phrased in terms far more blunt than those of the Archbishop, that the infidelities of the Jewish people constituted adultery. Israel was the spouse of Yahweh; when the Jews strayed to the "high places" to participate in pagan cults this constituted an adulterous liaison. The great temptation facing Catholics since the French Revolution has been to enter into an adulterous liaison with Liberalism, the pervading spirit of our times. Since Vatican II, large sections of the Church have succumbed to this temptation, none more evidently than the French hierarchy. Similarly, an attempt has been made to unite (in a clearly adulterous manner) Catholic and Protestant worship and doctrine. Thus many of the young priests emerging from our seminaries today (and I have personal experience of this) are a confused mixture of Liberalism and Protestantism, with possibly some vestigial Catholicism. Such is their confusion that they could not name their spiritual ancestry if asked, and to term them doctrinal bastards is blunt but accurate. Anyone who has attended a typical celebration of the New Mass will hardly need to be told that to call it a bastard rite is, if anything, an understatement.
The controversial passage reads as follows:
Quote:The union desired by these Liberal Catholics, a union between the Church and the Revolution and subversion is, for the Church, an adulterous union, adulterous. And that adulterous union can produce only bastards. And who are those bastards? They are our rites: the rite of Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments-we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them. The priests coming out of the seminaries do not themselves know what they are. In Rome it was the Archbishop of Cincinnati who said: "Why are there no more vocations? Because the Church no longer knows what a priest is." How then can She still form priests if She does not know what a priest is? The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests. They do not know what they are. They do not know that they were made to go up to the altar to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to give Jesus Christ to souls, and to call souls to Jesus Christ. That is what a priest is. Our young men here know that very well. Their whole life is going to be consecrated to that, to love, adore, and serve Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
The adulterous union of the Church with the Revolution is consolidated with dialogue. When the Church entered into dialogue it was to convert. Our Lord said: "Go, teach all nations, convert them." But He did not say to hold dialogue with them so as not to convert them, so as to try to put us on the same footing with them.
Error and truth are not compatible. We must see if we have charity towards others, as the Gospel says: he who has charity is one who serves others. But those who have charity should give Our Lord, they should give the riches they possess to others and not just converse with them and enter into dialogue on an equal footing. Truth and error are not on the same footing. That would be putting God and the Devil on the same footing, for the Devil is the father of lies, the father of error.
We must therefore be missionaries.
We must preach the Gospel, convert souls to Jesus Christ and not engage in dialogue with them in an effort to adopt their principles. That is what this bastard Mass and these bastard rites are doing to us, for we wanted dialogue with the Protestants and the Protestants said to us: "We will not have your Mass; we will not have it because it contains things incompatible with our Protestant faith. So change the Mass and we shall be able to pray with you. We can have intercommunion. We can receive your sacraments. You can come to our churches and we can come to yours; then it will be all finished and we shall have unity." We shall have unity in confusion, in bastardy. That we do not want. The Church has never wanted it. We love the Protestants; we want to convert them. But it is not loving them to let them think they have the same religion as the Catholic religion.
The next passage to be quoted was the most controversial in the whole sermon. It contains a reference to Argentina, about 150 words long out of a sermon of about 8,500 words, and it is the passage which was seized upon by Liberals, secular and Catholic, to categorize the entire speech as political and even to go as far as to compare Mgr. Lefebvre with Hitler! This is what the Archbishop said:
Quote:There will be no peace on this earth except in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The nations are at war -every day we have page after page of the newspapers about it, we have it on radio and television. Now because of a change of Prime Minister they are asking what can be done to improve the economic situation, what will strengthen the currency, what will bring prosperity to industry, and so on. All the papers in the world are full of it. But even from an economic point of view Our Lord Jesus Christ must reign, because the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the reign of the principles of love, indeed of the commandments of God which give society its balance, which make justice and peace reign in society .It is only when society has order, justice, and peace that the economy can prevail and revive. That is easily seen. Take the Argentine Republic as an example. What state was it in just two or three months ago? Complete anarchy, brigands killing right and left, industries totally ruined, factory owners seized and held to ransom, and so on. An incredible revolution, and that in a country so beautiful, so balanced, and so congenial as the Argentine Republic, a Republic which could be extraordinarily prosperous and enormously wealthy. Now there is a government of principle, with authority, which brings back order into life and stops the brigands murdering; and lo and behold! the economy is reviving, workers have employment, and they can return to their homes knowing that no one is going to knock them on the head because they will not strike when they do not wish to strike. That is the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ that we want; and we profess our faith, saying that Our Lord Jesus Christ is God.
Before making any comment on this passage I will quote an explanation which the Archbishop gave himself when questioned upon it during a press conference on 15 September 1976.2 Let it be noted once again that the passage in question is one of about 150 words in a sermon of about 8,500 words. The following question was posed to the Archbishop:
Quote:"You have recently been reproached with your sympathy for regimes like that in Argentina. Is this true or false?"
The Archbishop's answer reads as follows:
Quote:I have just been talking to you about principles, I might say political principles, which one may have, the political principles of the Church. She has principles, political principles, principles for society, for She considers that society is created by God, like the family. The family has its laws: there are father, mother, and child; and each has a law and a position in the family. Similarly in civil society. The Church considers that it is a creature of God, and that this creature of God also has its laws so that it can develop normally and give all its members the fullest possibility for their own development. Of course we want governments to observe these laws. I took that example, but I might have taken another, for, as you know, I do not write my speeches -a pity, perhaps -but I do not think about them well in advance. So, trying to give an example of Christian order, of the notion people have of Christian order which brings things back to peace and justice, with the hierarchy which is necessary in a society, I quoted this example because it is recent and known to everybody, and also because the situation was really frightful, the Argentine being in a state of anarchy, with assassinations and abductions-a situation on the brink of the abyss, on the verge of total anarchy. A government then took over, but I think that, given the ideas of some of these men (I know some of the Argentinian bishops and I was there myself not long ago), I think that these men who took over the government did so in a Christian spirit. That they are not governing perfectly, that they exaggerate, that not everything is perfect, I do not doubt for a moment (I do not think that any government in the world has ever been perfect) ; but they did, I think, return to principles of justice, and that is why I gave that example. I said: you see that when Christian principles are restored a society is rediscovered which can live, which is livable, in which people can live, where they need not always be asking themselves if they are going to be assassinated at the street corner, or be robbed, or have a bomb in their garden, and so on. All I wanted to do was give an example: but that does not mean I am a supporter of the government of the Argentine or of the government of Chile. I might have used Chile as an example. I could perhaps have quoted governments which were in total anarchy and which then re-established order. Such an order might be tyrannical, and then it is a different matter: we are not talking of introducing slavery .I must say that I did not use that example so as to support the government in the Argentine or to play politics. I do not play politics.
I would not wish to make any detailed comments on the regimes in Argentina and Chile as I have made no detailed personal study of them. What is perfectly clear is that in both cases the military only took over the government because life had been made literally impossible by the previous regimes. Let British or American readers spend a few moments calculating the precise meaning of an 800 per cent inflation rate, let them calculate the cost of the basic necessities of life multiplied eightfold and decide just how tolerable they would have found regimes which had brought about such a state of affairs.
It must also be remembered that in both countries Marxist terrorists consider themselves bound by no ethical norms in achieving their aims. During my own military service I had personal experience of two terrorist campaigns, in Malaya and Cyprus, and, leaving aside the question as to whether right is on the side of the military or the terrorists, it is hard for the security forces to conform to the rule book when dealing with men who violate civilized standards of behavior. To take Northern Ireland as an example, there can be no doubt that the situation there has been caused by an unjust partition of Ireland and unjust treatment of the Catholic population. The Catholics have a legitimate grievance which they have been unable to rectify through the accepted political channels. Nonetheless, when a soldier or policeman has seen his comrades blown to pieces by a terrorist bomb, or seen the carnage in a bomb-blasted shop, with woman and children lying dead or bleeding from lost limbs, is not likely to think much about the historical background when he gets his hands on a gunman. He should - but doesn't. It is wrong but understandable.
It is thus quite unjust for Liberals, Catholic or otherwise, to sit in judgment on the regimes in Chile and Argentine when they have no first- and probably even little second- or even third-hand knowledge of the background to the current situation in these countries. It is also a fact that the governments of Chile and Argentina have been subjected to a campaign of systematic defamation in the secular and Catholic press. To take just one example, those who rely for their information on the British Catholic press would imagine that the prisons of Chile are bursting with political prisoners when, in fact, there is not a single political prisoner in the entire country.3
As regards Argentina, the far from right-wing French journal L 'Express admitted in its issue of 30 August, the day after the sermon at Lille, that:
Quote:General Videla, brought to power by a coup d'etat, has managed at the last moment to save the economic situation of the country .With an 800 per cent inflation during the last twelve months of Isabel Peron's presidency, with no means of paying off its debts abroad, the Argentine was on the verge of bankruptcy. By freezing prices and freezing salaries, inflation has been brought down by at least 3 per cent a month.... The Argentine can resume its development on a solid foundation.
As for the "coup d'etat" of the Argentinian armed forces, on their side there was neither ambition nor despotism. They would have preferred (like the Brazilian armed forces in 1964) not to have to intervene. But there was nobody else. The Courrier de Paul Deheme makes that clear in its No. 7,967 of 16 September 1976:
Quote:The Argentinian armed forces refused for a long time to act, and on 24 March 1976, when they made their decision, the chaos had reached such a pitch that they could no longer delay. I remind you, moreover, of what I wrote to you on 17 March, a week before their seizure of power: "The armed forces are going to have to make draconian decisions whether they like it or not.'
The major part of the Archbishop's sermon was concerned with an impassioned defense of the traditional faith and a scathing indictment of the "Conciliar Church "-a Church in which consecrated churches are put at the disposal of Muslims but withheld from faithful Catholics wishing to offer the traditional Mass. The Archbishop laid stress on the need for traditionalists to put their case in a restrained and unaggresive manner:
Quote:We are against no one. We are not commandos. We wish nobody harm.
All we want is to be allowed to profess our faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ.
So, for that reason, we are driven from our churches. The poor priests are driven out for saying the Old Mass by which all our saints were sanctified: Saint Jeanne d'Arc, the holy Cure of Ars, the little Therese of the Child Jesus were sanctified by this Mass; and now priests are driven brutally, cruelly, from their parishes because they say the Mass which has sanctified saints for centuries. It is crazy. I would almost say it is a story of madmen. I ask myself if I am dreaming. How can this Mass have become some kind of horror for our bishops and for those who should preserve our faith? But we will keep the Mass of Saint Pius V because the Mass of Saint Pius V is the Mass of twenty centuries. It is the Mass of all time, not just the Mass of Saint Pius V; and it represents our faith, it is a bulwark of our faith, and we need that bulwark.
We shall be told that we are making it a question of Latin and soutanes. Obviously it is easy that way to discredit those you disagree with. But Latin has its importance; and when I was in Africa it was marvellous to see those crowds of Africans of different languages -we sometimes had five or six different tribes who did not understand one another - who could assist at Mass in our churches and sing the Latin chants with extraordinary fervor. Go and see them now : they quarrel in the churches because Mass is being said in a language other than theirs, so they are displeased and they want a Mass in their own language. The confusion is total, where before there was perfect unity. That is just one example, You have just heard the epistle and gospel read in French -I see no difficulty in that; and if more prayers in French were added, to be said all together, I still see no difficulty. But it still seems to me that the body of the Mass, which runs from the offertory to the priest's Communion, should remain in a unique language so that all men of all nations can assist together at Mass and can feel unity in that unity of faith, in that unity of prayer. So we ask, indeed we address an appeal to the bishops and to Rome: will they, please, take into consideration our desire to pray as our ancestors did, to keep the Catholic faith, our desire to adore Our Lord Jesus Christ and to want His reign. That is what I said in my last letter to the Holy Father-and I thought it really was the last, because I did not think the Holy Father would have written to me again.
The Archbishop also laid stress on the fact that while Communists and Freemasons were welcome in the Vatican, Catholic traditionalists were not. An audience of millions throughout the world was able to see at first hand the mask being torn from the face of the "Conciliar Church "- a Church characterized by harshness, hypocrisy, intolerance, and calculated cruelty to its most faithful children: a Church prepared to sacrifice its doctrinal and liturgical patrimony in the interests of an illusory ecumenical goal. There can be little doubt that it was the embarrassment resulting from this public exposure that resulted in the subsequent papal audience for the Archbishop.
It is also obvious that this massive demonstration of support for the Archbishop came as a great shock to the Vatican. Technically, after his suspension, not a single Catholic should have been present at the Mass, and the local bishops had reminded the faithful of this and warned that they should not be present even out of curiosity. It is also worth restating the fact that this Mass was in no way intended as a major public demonstration of support for the Archbishop and the traditional faith - it was made public only at the last minute. Had the Archbishop wished to arrange a demonstration of the massive support he enjoys and asked for this to be organized through the month of August it is doubtful whether there would have been a building in France large enough to accommodate the congregation.
The message which came from Lille was clear .The regime in the Vatican had insisted that the first, the only duty of Catholics was to accept all its directives without question. It wanted absolute and blind obedience. If it forbade today what it commanded yesterday it was not for the faithful to reason why but to obey. But the Catholics present at Lille showed, by their presence, that with Mgr. Lefebvre their commitment is to the traditional faith. In so far as the Vatican upholds that faith it will enjoy their support; where it fails to build up the Body of Christ but introduces measures which effectively undermine it then they will say "No," even to Pope himself.
Notes
1. Founder of Action francaise.
2. Itinéraires, No.208, December 1976, p. 127
3. The last political prisoner in Chile (the Communist ex-Senator Jorge Montes) was released on 17 June 1977 and allowed to travel to East Germany in exchange for eleven East German political prisoners, Chile today, No.33 (12 Devonshire Street, London, W1). For a factual background account of the Chilean situation read The Church of Silence in Chile, 450 pp., $7 postpaid from Lumen Mariae Publications, P. O. Box 99455, Erieview Station, Cleveland, Ohio 44199. Available in Britain from Augustine Publishing Co. Essential background reading on this topic is contained in two valuable Approaches supplements, “Dossier on Chile,” and “Hatred and Lies Against Latin America,” which prove, inter alia that Amnesty International had published false information, eg. alleging that people are missing who are not missing at all.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: saint_andrew.jpg]](https://sanctoral.com/en/saints/images/saint_andrew.jpg)
![[Image: saint_saturninus.jpg]](https://sanctoral.com/en/saints/images/saint_saturninus.jpg)
![[Image: saint_catherine_laboure.jpg]](https://sanctoral.com/en/saints/images/saint_catherine_laboure.jpg)
