| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 924 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 921 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Yandex
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - Against False Shepherds |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 03:01 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Archbishop Lefebvre - Against False Shepherds
- During his recent visit to America, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre referred several times to the report that several individuals including some claiming to be "traditional" priests had attempted to have themselves consecrated bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre totally condemned their actions and warned all Catholics to have nothing to do with them. "They will bring ruination and scandal on the Church," Archbishop Lefebvre replied when asked his opinion of the scandal-ridden "consecrations." "It is a direct result of what happens when one loses faith in God and separates himself with Rome and the Holy Father," Archbishop Lefebvre stated, "and the enemies of the Church, including those who so strongly promote Modernism, will try to associate us and other good traditional Catholics with these (fanatics) in hopes of trying to bring discredit upon the good as well as the evil." (Archbishop Lefebvre, A Warning to Traditional Catholics Concerning False Shepherds. The Angelus: June 1982)
- Faithful Catholics are reminded that their faith prevents them from having any contact whatever with these schismatics and heretics, and that they are not permitted to support them in any way. All involved have incurred automatic excommunication, and all who support or affiliate themselves with them do likewise. (ibid.)
- ... Catholics who [sic] realise they have been led astray by their shepherds from the true Catholic Faith, especially if one reflects that such Catholics are to be found all over the world, in Poland as elsewhere, thanks to the propaganda of the Pax Movement, supported by both government and clergy. Alas ! How many Catholics have already lost the Faith, how many have joined the sects now spawning all over parts of the world where they were unknown twenty years ago!... (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 1981)
Quotes from other traditional clergy about False Shepherds
Fr. Cornelius Byman
- We traditionalists are already in trouble with dozens, if not hundreds, of false bishops and bastard priests, consecrated and ordained by schismatics. If we don't stop our apathy in so serious a case, the Catholic Church may be flooded in a short time by hundreds, or thousands, of vocationless impostors, consecrated and ordained arbitrarily, or having bought their Orders. Let all the good priests remain united in charity, in mutual understanding and prayer, confident in Our Lord Who has promised: "I shall be with you all days, even till the end of time." (Fr. Byman, Who Is Msgr. Pierre Martin Ngo-Dhin-Thuc? The Angelus: April 1983)
- Let us pray for him [Msgr. Thuc] so that he may recognize his part in the confusion and damage he has caused to the same cause, that he believed he served, and looked forward to the reward Providence had in store for him, that he may see the grave infractions he has made in the divinely inspired laws of the holy Catholic Church. The laws of the Church count for all her members. We must have confidence in Him Who declared before His Ascension: "I shall be with you all days, even till the end of time." (ibid.)
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - On Papal Infallibility |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 02:59 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre - On Papal Infallitbility
- “Many Catholics are seriously ignorant about the nature and scope of the pope’s infallibility. Very many think that every word that comes from his mouth is infallible.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)
- “We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said:
"There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility."
So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly. Then we must not keep this idea which is false which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! (Retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1, 1989)
- “But he, even if in certain respects he carries the infallibility within his being pope, nevertheless by his intentions and ideas he is opposed to it because he wants nothing more to do with infallibility. He does not believe in it and he makes no acts stamped with the stamp of infallibility. That is why they wanted Vatican II to be a pastoral council and not a dogmatic council, because they do not believe in infallibility. They do not want a definitive Truth. The Truth must live and must evolve. It may eventually change with time, with history, with knowledge, etc., ...whereas infallibility fixes a formula once and for all, it makes - stamps - a Truth as unchangeable. That is something they can't believe in, and that is why we are the supporters of infallibility and the Conciliar Church is not. The Conciliar Church is against infallibility - that's for sure and certain. Cardinal Ratzinger is against infallibility. The pope is against infallibility by his philosophical formation. Understand me rightly!’ (“One Year After the Consecrations,” Archbishop Lefebvre, 1989)
- Question: But isn't the fact that Pope Paul VI occupies the seat of St. Peter enough for you to heed whatever the pontiff as the vicar of Christ on earth asks you to do, just as other Catholics do?
Archbishop Lefebvre: “Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun. He was only infallible in very specific matters of faith and morals. At that time, many enemies of the church did all they could to ridicule this dogma and propagate misconceptions. For example, the enemies of the church often said to the unknowing and naive that if the pope said a dog was a cat, it was the duty of Catholics blindly to accept this position without any question. Of course this was an absurd interpretation and the Catholics knew that. This time the same enemies of the church, now that it serves their purpose, are working very hard to have whatever the pope says accepted, without question, as infallible, almost as if his words were uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ himself. This impression, although widely promoted, is nevertheless utterly false. Infallibility is extremely limited, only bearing on very specific cases which Vatican I has very well defined and detailed. It is not possible to say that whenever the pope speaks he is infallible.” (Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, 1978)
- “For the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI did not use the principle of dogmatic infallibility. He was satisfied with declaring it pastoral. The conciliar popes are unable to use their doctrinal infallibility because the very foundation of infallibility is to believe that a truth must be fixed forever and can no longer change: it must remain as it is. John Paul II, even more than Paul VI, does not believe in the immutability of truth.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)
- "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. (Statement, March 1988)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - On the New [Conciliar] Code of Canon Law |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 02:56 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre - On the New [Conciliar] Code of Canon Law
- “And in fact, there is even an additional obstacle, which is the new Code of Canon Law, which has been made in the same spirit I’ve just been speaking to you about, the spirit of the Council, a bad spirit.” (Conference, Long Island, New York, November 5, 1983)
- “Another grave problem now undermining the Church is found in the new Canon Law. The new Canon Law is very serious for it goes much further than the Council itself.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
- A second question is now being put to us: “What do you think of the new Canon Law?”
We are unfortunately obliged to answer that despite certain useful modifications, the spirit which has presided over this general reform is the same as that which inspired the changing of liturgical books, catechisms, and the Bible. The Apostolic Constitution introducing the new Canon Law explicitly says on page xi of the Vatican edition: “The work, namely the Code, is in perfect accord with the nature of the Church, especially as has been proposed by the II Vatican Council. Moreover, this new Code can be conceived as an effort to expose in canonical language this doctrine, i.e., conciliar Ecclesiology. The elements of this Ecclesiology are the following: Church = people of God; hierarchical authority = collegial service; Church = communion; and lastly the Church with Her duty to ecumenism. Each one of these notions is ambiguous and will allow Protestant and Modernist errors to inspire from now on the legislation of the Church. It is the authority of the Pope and of the Bishops which is going to suffer; the distinction between the clergy and the laity will also diminish; the absolute and necessary character of the Catholic will also be extenuated to the profit of heresy and schism; and the fundamental realities of sin and grace will be worn down. These are all dangerous for the doctrine of the Church and the salvation of souls. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1983)
- ... when one reads this new code of Canon Law one discovers an entirely new conception of the Church. It is easy to be aware of, since John Paul II himself describes it in the apostolic constitution which introduces the new Code. ". . . It follows that which constitutes the fundamental novelty of Vatican Council II, in full continuity with the legislative tradition of the Church (this is to deceive), especially in that which concerns ecclesiology, constitutes also the novelty of the new Code." Hence the novelty of the conception of the Church according to the Council is equally the novelty of the conception of the new Code of Canon Law. (Archbishop Lefebvre, given at Turin, Italy, March 24, 1984)
- What is this novelty? It is that there is no longer any difference between the clergy and the laity. There is now just the faithful, nothing else ... (Ibid.)
- This is exactly the same thing as saying today that Bishops, priests and laymen have all responsibility for the mission of the Church. But who gives the graces to become a Catholic? How does one become faithful? No one knows any more who has the responsibility for what. It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church. Everything is oriented towards the laymen, and little by little the sacred ministers disappear. The minor orders and the subdiaconate have already disappeared. Now there are married deacons, and little by little laymen take over the ministry of the priests. This is precisely what Luther and the protestants did, laicizing the priesthood. It is consequently very serious. (Ibid.)
- It is this same spirit which inspired the changing of the canon Law as that which inspired the changes in the Liturgy: it is the people of God, the assembly, which does everything. The same applies to the priest. He is a simple president who has a ministry, as others have a ministry, in the midst of an assembly. Our orientation towards God has likewise disappeared. This comes from the Protestants who say that Eucharistic devotion (for them there is neither Mass nor sacrifice: this would be blasphemy) is simply a movement of God towards man, but not of man towards God to render Him glory, which is nevertheless the first (latreutic) end of the Liturgy. This new state of liturgical mind comes likewise from Vatican II: everything is for man. The bishops and priest are at the service of man and the assembly. But where is God then? In what is His glory sought? What will we do in heaven? For in heaven "all is for the glory of God," which is exactly what we ought to do here on earth. But all that is done away with, and replaced by man. This is truly the ruin of all Catholic thought. (Ibid.)
- You know that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion to a Protestant. It is what they call Eucharistic hospitality. These are Protestants who remain Protestant and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To give Communion to a Protestant is to rupture the Faith and its unity. (Ibid.)
Quotes by Other Traditional Clergy on the New Code of Canon Law
- It was, in fact, Pope John Paul II who recognized the centrality of the new theology of the Church in all the changes that have come about in the past 40 years. He states it very explicitly in the Apostolic Constitution that he wrote to introduce the 1983 Code of Canon Law, on January 25, 1983. He there states that: "the new Code can be conceived as a great effort to transfer into canonical language this doctrine itself [i.e., proposed by Vatican II], namely conciliar Ecclesiology." He goes on to state that: "the fundamental reason for the novelty which...is found in the Second Vatican Council, especially with respect to its ecclesiological teachings, is also the reason for the novelty contained in the new Code." It must be remembered that the laws contained in the Code of Canon Law are the practical guide for Catholics in living their Faith, and that any "novelty" contained therein must be of the greatest importance for them. (Fr. Peter Scott, "How Are Catholics to Respond to the Present Crisis in the Church?: April 2003)
- "... it was the mark of collegiality that eminently distinguished the origin of the new Code, and that this mark is full in agreement with the Magisterium and nature of the Second Vatican Council, bearing its spirit. In order to establish this point the Pope lists the chief novel teachings of Vatican II contained in the Code, namely that "the Church, the universal sacrament of salvation, is shown to be the People of God and its hierarchical constitution to be founded on the College of Bishops together with its head". This is effectively the definition of collegiality. (Ibid.)
- "...the shameless practice of Ecumenism and sacramental sharing with non-Catholics, [is] permitted in the entirely invalid Canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law." (Ibid.)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - The New Conciliar Oath of Fidelity |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 02:52 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre - Against the New Conciliar Oath of Fidelity
- “Firstly, [in the Oath of Fidelity] there is the Credo which poses no problems. The Credo has remained intact. And, so the first and second sections raise no difficulties either. They are well-known things from a theological point of view. It is the third section which is very bad. What it means in practice is lining up on what the bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which, of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council. To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."
"As it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit of these people with whom it is impossible to come to an agreement. It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath suppressed in the wake of the Council. All the poison in this third section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state their full agreement with the bishops. It is as if in the times of Arianism one had said, "Now you are in agreement with everything that all the Arian bishops think."
"No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One may ask oneself if in Rome they didn't mean in this way to correct the text of the protocol. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favor in Article III of the Doctrinal Declaration because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.
"And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.
"Differently from in the Protocol, in these new texts there is a submission to the Council and all the Conciliar bishops. That is their spirit and no one will change them.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - Against Sedevacantism |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 02:47 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- Replies (1)
|
|
Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - Against Sedevacantism
Pre-1986 [Assisi meetings]
- Gradually one’s eyes are opened to behold an astounding conspiracy prepared long before hand [before Vatican II]. Such a discovery makes one wonder what part the Pope played in all this work and how responsible he was for what happened. In spite of the desire to find him innocent of this appalling betrayal of the Church, it would seem that his involvement was overwhelming. Even, however, if we leave it to God and to Peter’s true successors to sit in judgment of these things, it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed. (Archbishop Lefebvre, A Note on the Title, I Accuse the Council, Paris, France August 27, 1976)
- “As long as I don’t have evidence that the Pope is not the Pope, well then the presumption is for him, the presumption is for the Pope. I am not saying that there can be no arguments that can put a doubt in certain cases, but there has to be evidence that is not only a valid doubt. And amongst people who defend these ideas and who have these ideas, they change arguments, first it is one argument, and then it is another; this argument is not sufficiently valid, we take another argument. If the argument was not valid, then it was doubtful. And if it is doubtful, we do not have the right to draw enormous consequences, considerable consequences...” (Archbishop Lefebvre, January 16, 1979)
- ... those who affirm that there is no Pope over-simplify the problem. The reality is more complex. If one begins to study the question of whether or not a Pope can be heretical, one quickly discovers that the problem is not as simple as one might have thought. The very objective study of Xaverio de Silverira on this subject demonstrates that a good number of theologians teach that the Pope can be heretical as a private doctor or theologian but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. One must then examine in what measure Pope Paul VI willed to engage in infallibility in the diverse cases where he signed texts close to heresy if not formally heretical. ... Can a Pope be Liberal and remain Pope? The Church has always severely reprimanded Liberal Catholics, but she has not always excommunicated them. ... Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians. The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. (Archbishop Lefebvre, The New Mass and the Pope [November 8, 1979] Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre)
- We are nearing the end. Everyone will fall into heresy. Everyone will fall into error because wicked clergy, as St. Pius X predicted, have found their way into the Church and occupied it. They have spread errors from the positions of authority they occupy in the Church. Are we then required to follow error because it comes from someone in authority? No more than we should obey parents who are unworthy and ask us to do unworthy things, no more should we obey those who ask us to abandon our Faith and to abandon all Tradition. This is out of the question. Oh, of course, all this is a mystery, a great mystery, this union of the divine with the human.
The Church is divine, and the Church is human. How far can human weakness how shall I say overshadow the divinity of the church? Only God knows. It is a great mystery. We see the facts; we must put ourselves in full view of the facts and never abandon the Church, the Roman Catholic Church, never abandon her, never abandon the successor of Peter, because through him we are united to Our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. But if, by some misfortune, under the influence of some spirit or other, or some weakness or pressure, or through neglect, he abandons his duty and leads us along roads which make us lose our faith, well, we must not follow, although at the same time we recognize that he is Peter and if he speaks with the charism of infallibility, we must accept his teaching, but when he does not speak with the charism of infallibility, he may very well be mistaken alas! It is not the first time that something like this has happened in history. (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1982 Ordination Sermon)
- When Pope Honorius was condemned, he was condemned as Pope. And yet, the Council of Constantinople – I believe it was Pope Leo II, although I’m not sure - condemned Pope Honorius for favoring heresy. He didn’t say “he favored heresy, so he was no longer the Pope.” No. And neither did he say "since he was the pope, you had to obey him and accept what he said.” No, because he condemned him! So what did [Catholics] have to do then? Well, one had to admit that Pope Honorius was the Pope, but one did not have to follow him because he favoured heresy! Isn't that the conclusion then? That seems to me the normal conclusion. Well, we're in that situation. One day these popes will be condemned by their successors. One day the truth will return. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference on Sedevacantism and Liberalism, Econe, 1984)
- So they keep this sense of faith, the sense that Providence gives to the good faithful and to today’s good priests, [this sense] to keep the faith, to stay put, to keep their attachment to Rome as well and to remain faithful to the apostolicity, to the visibility of the Church, which are essential things, even if they do not follow the Popes when they favour heresy, as Pope Honorius did. He's been convicted. Those who would have followed Pope Honorius at that time would have been mistaken since he was condemned afterwards. So then, I believe that we would be misled in actually following the Popes in what they are doing... but they will probably also one day be condemned by the ecclesiastical authority. (Ibid.)
- See, I think that's where our whole problem lies. We live in an exceptional time. We cannot judge everything that is done in the Church according to normal times. We find ourselves in an exceptional situation, it is also necessary to interpret the principles that should govern our ecclesiastical superiors. These principles, we must see them in the minds of those who live today, those principles that were so clear in the past, so simple, that no one was discussing them, that we did not have the opportunity to discuss them, they fail, I would say, in the minds of the Liberals, in the minds, as I explained to you, that have no clarity of vision... It changes the situation. We are in a situation of unbelievable confusion. So let's not draw mathematical conclusions like that, without considering these circumstances. Because then we make mistakes:
Either we endorse the revolution in the Church, and participate in the destruction of the Church, and we leave with the progressives. Or we leave the Church completely and find ourselves where? Who with? What with? How would we be linked to the apostles, how connected to the origins of the Church? Gone... and how long is this going to last? So if the last three conclaves should no longer be considered valid, as those in America say who have consecrated their own bishops, and if then there is no longer a Pope, and if are no more cardinals either.. ? We don't see how we could once more obtain a legitimate pope... No! That's a complete mess!
- So it seems to me that we must stay on this course of common sense, and of the direction which also agrees with the good sense of the faithful ... We remain as we are now, we want to keep Tradition. But neither do we want to separate ourselves completely from the Pope, [saying] "There is no longer a pope, there is no longer anything, there is no more authority, we don't know to whom we are attached, there is no more Rome, there is no more Catholic Church". That [solution] doesn’t work either. They are lost too, they feel lost, they are disoriented. (Ibid.)
- ... the defenders of tradition are divided. Some say that the Decrees of Rome, signed or carried out by the Pope, are so bad that the Pope cannot be a legitimate Pope, he is a usurper. There is therefore no Pope, the See is vacant. Others affirm that the Pope cannot sign decrees which are destructive of the Faith and therefore these decrees are acceptable and one must submit to them. The Society [of St. Pius X] does not accept one or the other of these two solutions, but supported by the history of the Church and the doctrine of theologians, thinks that the Pope can favorize the ruin of the Church by choosing bad collaborators and allowing them to act, by signing decrees which do not engage his infallibility, sometimes even by his own admission, which cause considerable harm to the Church. Nothing is more dangerous to the Church than liberal Popes who are in a continual state of incoherence. On the other hand, we think that God can allow the Church to be afflicted with this misfortune. Consequently we pray for the Pope but we refuse to follow him in his folly in regard to religious liberty, ecumenism, socialism and the application of reforms which are ruinous for the Church. Our apparent disobedience is true obedience to the Church and the Pope as successor of Peter in the measure that he continues to maintain Tradition. (Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter)
Post-1986 [Assisi meetings]
- Q. - Implicitly, it seems that you are “sedevacantist”?
A. - No, it's not because I say that the Pope is unfaithful to his task, that I say there isn’t a Pope anymore, or that I say he is a formal heretic. I think that it is necessary to judge the men of current Rome and those who are under their influence the same way the bishops, Pope Pius IX and St. Pius X considered liberals and modernists.
Q. – How did they consider them ?
A. - Pope Pius IX condemned liberal Catholics. He even said this terrible sentence: "Liberal Catholics are the worst enemies of the Church.” What more could he say? However, he did not say: all liberal Catholics are excommunicated, are outside the Church and must be denied Communion. No, he considered these men as "the worst enemies of the Church," and yet, he did not excommunicate them.
The holy pope, Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi, also dealt as severe a judgment on modernism, calling it the "synthesis of all heresies." I do not know if it is possible to bring a more severe judgment to condemn a movement! But he did not say that all modernists would from now on be excommunicated, outside the Church, and that they had to be refused Communion. He condemned some.
Also, I think that, like these two popes, we must judge them severely, but not necessarily considering them as being outside the Church. That is why I do not want to follow the “sedevacantists” who say: they are modernists; modernism is the crossroads of heresies; so modernists are heretics; so they are no longer in communion with the Church; so there isn’t a Pope anymore...
We cannot make a judgment with such implacable logic. There is, in this way of judging, passion and a little pride. Let us judge these men and their errors in the same way as the popes themselves did.
The pope is modernist, that’s certain, like Cardinal Ratzinger and many men of his entourage. But let us judge them like Pope Pius IX and St. Pius X judged them. And so this is why we continue to pray for the Pope and to ask God to give him the graces he needs to accomplish his task. (Interview given to Pacte, 1987)
- "So what is our attitude? It is clear that all those who are leaving us or who have left us for sedevacantism or because they want to be submitted to the present hierarchy of the Church all the while hoping to keep Tradition, we cannot have relations with them anymore. It is not possible.
Us, we say that we cannot be submitted to the ecclesiastical authority and keep Tradition. They say the opposite. They are deceiving the faithful. Despite the esteem we may have for them, there is of course no question of insulting them, but we do not want to engage in polemics and we prefer not to deal with them anymore. It is a sacrifice we have to make. But it did not start today, it has been going on for twenty years.
All those who separate from us, we are very affected by it, but we really cannot make another choice if we want to keep Tradition. We must be free from compromise as much with regard to sedevacantists as with regard to those who absolutely want to be submitted to the ecclesiastical authority.” (Conference, Flavigny, December 1988; Fideliter, March/April 1989)
- "Unlike sedevacantists, we act vis-a-vis the Pope as vis-a-vis the Successor of Peter. We address ourselves to him as such, and we pray as such. The majority of faithful and traditional priests also feel that it is the prudential and wise solution: to recognize that there is a successor on the throne of Peter, and that it is necessary to strongly oppose him, because of the errors he spreads." ("Apres les ralliements sonnera l’heure de vérité," Fideliter 68, March 1989, p. 13).
- “I think, nevertheless, that we need a link with Rome. It is still there in Rome where we find the succession of Peter, the succession of the apostles, of the apostle Peter, of the primacy of Peter and of the Church. If we cut this link, we are really like a boat which is cast off to the mercy of the waves, without knowing anymore to which place we are attached and to whom we are attached. I think it is possible to see in the person who succeeds all the preceding popes, since if he occupies the see, he was accepted as Bishop of Rome at Saint John Lateran. Now it is the Bishop of Rome who is the successor of Peter; he is recognized as the successor of Peter by all the bishops of the world. Good! What you want? We can think that he is really the successor of Peter, and in this sense, we attach ourselves to him and through him to all his predecessors, ontologically so to speak. And then, his actions, what he does, what he thinks and the ideas he spreads; that is another thing, of course. It is a great sorrow for the Catholic Church, for us, that we are forced to witness such a thing. But I think that this is the solution that corresponds to the reality.
The solution of sedevacantism is not a solution: it poses a lot of problems, because if since Pope Paul VI there were no popes, then all the cardinals that were made by these popes are invalidly made; so the votes they made as cardinals, members of the Conclave, are void; and who will then re-establish the link with John XXIII?; and even if we think that John XXIII wasn’t pope either, then we have to go back to Pius XII. Who is going to re-establish the tie? Because if these cardinals were invalidly-made cardinals, they cannot elect the future Pope. Who is going to designate the new pope? We are completely lost! It is not surprising that in these circles there have been groups that have made a pope. It is logical. Let us keep a little the solution of common sense and the solution that the faithful inspire in us.
Every time that there were stories of sedevacantism that caused a little trouble in the Society, I must say, well, on the whole, we can say that the faithful did not follow. These faithful followed us, followed the solution of the Society, And I think that if one day we all of a sudden took the decision - the authorities of the Society, the majority of priests – and said “it is clear now, we affirm that there is no Pope,” the faithful would not follow us. Most of the faithful would not follow us! With good reason. Look at Bordeaux for example, when Fr. Guepin left with Father Belmont, well they thought that they were going take two-thirds of the parish with them. They had two or three families, that’s all. No, no! The faithful have the sense of the faith. See how they reacted to the episcopal consecrations. The faithful have the sense of the faith. They have good sense and the sense of the faith. We can rely on the judgment of our good Christians, our good faithful.”( Conference, priests’ retreat, 1989)
- “And then, he [Dom Guillo] goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous…you know, this famous una cum.., una cum of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cum? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel en Brenne). You say una cum in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim that when we say una cum summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the prayer. Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed.
"We therefore pray Thee with profound humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy Father the Pope."
It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps, unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith!
Then he [Dom Guillou] had a note about that to clarify a little: "In the official translation, based on a critical review of Dom Batte, the UNA CUM or "in union with" of the sedevacantists of any shade is no longer equivalent but to the conjunction" and "reinforced either by the need to restate the sentence, or to match the solemn style of the Roman canon. Anyway, every Catholic is always in union with the Pope in the precise area where the divine assistance is exercised, infallibility confirmed by the fact that as soon as there is a deviation from the dogmatic tradition, the papal discourse contradicts itself.
Let us collect the chaff, knowing that for the rest, it is more necessary than ever to ask God, with the very ancient Major Litanies, that be "kept in the holy religion" the "holy orders" and "Apostolic Lord" himself (that is to say the Pope): UT DOMINUM APOSTOLICUM AND OMNES ECCLESIASTICOS ORDINES INSANCTA RELIGIONE CONSERVARE DIGNERIS, TE ROGAMUS, AUDI NOS."
It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? We ask to keep the Pope in the true religion.. We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said "There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility". So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly.
Then we must not keep this idea which is false which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe! So obviously, we no longer understand anything, we are completely desperate, we do not know what to expect! We must keep the Catholic faith as the Church teaches it. (Retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1, 1989)
- “The issue concerning the Pope is obviously a great mystery. It is probably something that you think about often and that cannot be eliminated. It is a serious problem, perhaps the most serious of the current situation of the Church. So, the declarations of the Pope, his acts, the ecumenical acts that he did and that he redoes many times during his travels and during his receptions at the Vatican, his statements, everything throw us into anguish. Then, a certain number of traditionalists believe that they have to conclude that: “the Pope is not the Pope. This is not possible. He is heretical. He is schismatic. He cannot be the Pope, so there is no more Pope.” They consider the seat as vacant. This logic may be too simple, too mathematical. The complexity of things in reality is often much greater than we think.
See for yourselves, in the reading that we are making you do on the semi-rationalists, semi-liberals. We are dealing with people who mix up truth and error, who live in a continual contradiction. If you read the book on liberalism of Cardinal Billot, you see that the Cardinal defines precisely what a liberal is: a man who is in contradiction all the time, a man who constantly contradicts himself and who lives in contradiction. He is always two-faced. And so, they are dangerous people. This is what Pope Pius IX said. Pope Pius IX considers them as the greatest danger in the church because they mislead the faithful. Sometimes, we believe that they are traditional and that they conform to the truth of the Church, and then, all of a sudden, they fall into error and lead people into error. It is very, very dangerous. They scandalize and lead millions of faithful into error.
So, personally, I believed, during all these years, for twenty years, in having to act as if the Pope was Pope, in not asking myself deeper questions, in having to act, in practice, as if the Pope was the Pope. I would say: "I recognize the Pope as the Pope of the Holy Catholic Church.” This is why I have never refused to go to Rome when I was summoned there. The books edited by Madiran on The Savage Condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Holy Office well prove that [...] I have considered the authority of the Pope as if he was the Pope. And then, I often appealed to him, I wrote I do not know how many times to Pope Paul VI and to Pope John Paul II, and then to the offices and to the congregations and to the presidents of the congregations in charge of fixing these problems. I think that this is the wisest attitude and the most consistent with the spirit of the Church.” (Easter Retreat, Econe, April 11, 1990)
- “I have always warned the faithful vis-à -vis the sedevacantists, for example. There, also, people say: “The Mass is fine, so we go to it.” Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, contacts before and after, which make you little by little, change your ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one frequents a milieu.” (Fideliter No. 79, January/February 1991)
Other Sources that demonstrate Archbishop Lefebvre was Against Sedevacantism
- Fr. Wickens, in an interview with New Jersey Family News, 1989:
The Pope and the Archbishop
- Q. Does Archbishop Lefebvre reject the papacy?
- A. On the contrary, Archbishop Lefebvre upholds the papacy more than any other bishop in the United States. We say this without fear of contradiction. Can you make sure that his subjects teach authentic doctrine and morals as promulgated by all the popes and councils (from St. Peter to the present pontiff)? Name one! The American bishops pretend to obey the Pope, but disobey papal directives on a daily basis. Altar girls are prohibited; so are ministers for Communion (except in emergency situations), general absolution, sex ed in schools, heresy, denial of Faith and morals—these are all forbidden by the Pope. Every American bishop permits these things to go on week after week, year after year, in his parishes, schools and seminaries. These bishops are directly at fault and fully culpable. When these bishops try to hang the label "disobedient to the Pope" on a traditional bishop, it is so hypocritical as to make the Devil himself laugh! On the other hand, Archbishop Lefebvre, and the Society of St. Pius X, takes great pains to see that every priest in every chapel, school and seminary, upholds every revealed doctrine, every de fide pronouncement from every pope and every council. No American bishop can make that claim!
- Q. Has Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the present Pope?
- A. Never! He loves the Pope and the papacy. His heart weeps when he sees the present Pontiff make unwise administrative decisions and disarrange previous Church practices. For example, by speaking from the pulpits of various Protestant churches and synagogues, most non-Catholics (and Catholics) conclude that one religion is as good as another. This is called religious indifference—an error soundly condemned by the Magisterium.
- Q. Does he support this Pope?
- A. In the St. Pius X seminaries there is always a portrait of the present Pope, and the practice of daily prayers for him is mandated in every institution.
- Q. Why do we pray for the Pope? Is there something wrong? Does he need prayers?
- A. Catholics have always prayed for the Pope because he is tempted to sin like every other human being. St. Peter himself needed prayers, having evidenced his three-fold denial of Christ on the night of Our Savior's passion.
- Q. Besides the Pope needing our prayers, is there something wrong in the Vatican?
- A. One would be naive not to see that the Church is ravaged from within by heretical teachers who have corrupted a whole generation of young people. Yet few are excommunicated or suspended from the priestly office. Father Curran, Father McNulty, Father Matthew Fox, Archbishop Weakland... and hundreds of other heretics are all in good standing with Rome. And whom does the Vatican censure? The saintly, moral, orthodox Archbishop Lefebvre. Something very strange is going on.
- Q. What, precisely, is wrong in the Vatican?
- A. There are many theories:1) The Pope does not know what is the present state of the Church;2) The Pope's secretaries and aides screen all his mail and keep him conveniently ignorant. The bishops feed him falsely optimistic reports;3) A strongly Masonic element among the Vatican bureaucracy;4) The Pope is a virtual prisoner of this bureaucracy, which renders him relatively helpless;5) The Pope is too busy... in visiting foreign countries and receiving world dignitaries... to pay close attention to the heretical clergymen and bishops;6) The administrative work of the Pope, in effect, is done by Vatican officials. The Pope simply puts his signature, without close scrutiny, on the appointment of bishops and other such matters;7) The Pope is afraid of an American schism;**8) The Pope has been influenced by Modernist pressures, but he is doing his best.
- Q. What opinion do most conservative priests have?
- A. We simply do not know. But we cannot help but conclude that something is wrong.Q. We, as Roman Catholics, love and respect the Holy Father, do we not?A. Of course we do! He is indeed the Vicar of Christ on earth, and Successor of St. Peter, and St. Pius X and Pope Liberius, and Pope Honorius, and Pope Callistus. Some of these men were saints, others less than that. But, in every case, they were human beings, with grave responsibilities, who need prayers. Did not Christ say to Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee that thy faith faith fail not..." (Luke 22,31)And again: "And [Jesus] turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me... because thou savourest not the things of God but the things that are of men" (Matthew 16,23). (Fr. Wickens, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: A Living Saint, Angelus: January 1989
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - On Obedience |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 02:36 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre - On True and False Obedience
"It is the teaching of the Church that obedience is part of justice, one of the four cardinal virtues, which are in turn subordinate to the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. Faith is greater than obedience ! Therefore, if obedience acts to harm the faith, then a Catholic has a duty not to obey his superior." "Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things."
- St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104
- “Satan’s master stroke will therefore be to spread the revolutionary principles introduced into the Church by the authority of the Church itself, placing this authority in a situation of incoherence and permanent contradiction; so long as this ambiguity has not been dispersed, disasters will multiply within the Church. […] We must acknowledge that the trick has been well played and that Satan’s lie has been masterfully utilized. The Church will destroy Herself through obedience. […] You must obey! Whom or what must we obey? We don’t know exactly. Woe to the man who does not consent. He thereby earns the right to be trampled under-foot, to be calumniated, to be deprived of everything which allowed him to live. He is a heretic, a schismatic; let him die – that is all he deserves.” (October 13, 1974)
- “Satan has really succeeded in pulling off a master stroke: he is succeeding in having those who keep the Catholic Faith condemned by the very people who should be defending and propagating it. […] Satan reigns through ambiguity and incoherence, which are his means of combat, and which deceive men of little Faith. Satan’s master stroke, by which he is bringing about the auto-destruction of the Church, is therefore to use obedience in order to destroy the Faith: authority against Truth.“ (October 13, 1974)
- “One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between blind obedience and the virtue of obedience. Indiscriminate obedience is actually a sin against the virtue of obedience.” (Interview, July 1978)
- “How could we, by a blind and servile obedience, go along with these schismatics who ask us to collaborate in their enterprise of demolishing the Church?” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)
- “Every Catholic can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith, the Faith of the Eternal Church, upheld by his childhood catechism. The defense of his Faith is the first duty of every Christian, more especially of every priest and bishop. Wherever an order carries with it the danger of corrupting Faith and morals, “disobedience” becomes a grave duty.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, no. 9, 1975).
- "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 one to obey? “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.” In other words, a law which is not for the common good is not a law and consequently, one is not obliged to obey it." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Montreal, Canada, May, 1982).
- “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.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Can Obedience Oblige us to Disobey?” from the July 1988 edition of “The Angelus Magazine”, statement originally given March 29th, 1988)
- From the "Suppressed Interview of 1978"
What about those bishops who are not liberals but still oppose and criticize you?
Their opposition is based on an inaccurate understanding of obedience to the pope. It is, perhaps, a well-meant obedience, which could be traced to the ultramontane obedience of the last century, which in those days was good because the popes were good. However, today, it is a blind obedience, which has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic faith. At this stage it is relevant to remind Catholics allover the world that obedience to the pope is not a primary virtue. The hierarchy of virtues starts with the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity followed by the four cardinal virtues of justice, temperance, prudence and fortitude. Obedience is a derivative of the cardinal virtue of justice. Therefore it is far from ranking first in the hierarchy of virtues.
- "As soon as authority fails its mandate, it also loses its right to obedience. When the Pope by his policies leads us into contacts with Protestants and other religions, in such a way that we lose our faith, in that case the Pope forfeits the right to obedience by his subordinates." (Archbishop Lefebvre, as quoted in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, statement originally quoted in The National Catholic Register, 7 August 1977)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - On Ecumenism |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 02:33 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - On Ecumenism
- “Ecumenism is not the Church’s mission. The Church is not ecumenical, she is missionary. The goal of the missionary Church is to convert. The goal of the ecumenical Church is to find what is true in errors and to remain at this level. It is to deny the truth of the Church.” (April 14, 1978)
- “… and this, it is really the modern heresy, that we can really designate under this new term, for it really seems that there is a new heresy in addition to modernism, liberalism, and all those old errors, it seems to me that we can define this modern error: ecumenism, this false ecumenism.” (Conference at Econe, May 16, 1978)
- “Then came this abominable ecumenism which is nothing but the means to penetrate liberal ideas within the Church, because it is the principle of Religious Liberty, a principle which is in the constitution, in the Declaration of Human Rights.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)
- "We want to be in perfect unity with the Holy Father, but in the unity of the Catholic Faith, because there is only this unity that can unite us. But not this kind of ecumenical union, a sort of liberal ecumenism, because I think this is what best defines modern tendencies and what we could almost express as the 'modern heresy.' As I had the occasion to say in Essen, I think that what best defines the whole crisis in the Church is really this liberal ecumenical spirit. I say liberal ecumenism because there is a certain ecumenism that, if properly defined, could be acceptable. But liberal ecumenism, such as is practiced by the present Church and especially since Vatican II, necessarily carries true heresies." (Conference of April 14, 1978)
- “The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is Religious Freedom, it is Ecumenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
- “In this world, there are forces opposed to Our Lord, and to his reign. Satan and all the auxiliaries of Satan, conscious or unconscious, refuse this reign, this way of salvation and fight for the destruction of the Church. Thus the Church is engaged by her Divine Founder in a gigantic combat. All means were and are employed by Satan to triumph. One of the last, extremely efficacious stratagems is to destroy the combative spirit of the Church by persuading her that there are no more enemies, and that we must put down our arms and enter into a dialogue of peace and cordiality. This fallacious truce will permit the enemy to penetrate everywhere and corrupt the forces of the Church. This truce is liberal ecumenism, a diabolical instrument of auto-destruction of the Church. This liberal ecumenism will result in the neutralisation of the arms which are the liturgy with the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, the breviary, the liturgical feasts, the neutralisation and ceasing of the seminaries…” (Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper)
- "The enemy of Ecône is not Such-and-Such, at the Vatican or elsewhere. The enemy of Ecône is Liberalism, the destroyer of the Church. And as to the men who serve this liberalism and who aim to cut us down, these are not our personal enemies – they are only pawns of liberalism. One must understand this: Our battle is not a confrontation between persons and characters. It goes well beyond: it is the battle of faith against error." (Vatican Encounter: Conversations with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, by José Hanu)
- Jesus is not optional. “Qui non est mecum, contra me est—He that is not with Me is against Me” (Mt. 12:30). To deny this is the fundamental error of religious liberty and ecumenism. Lefebvre, Marcel, Spiritual Journey. Kansas City: Angelus Press, E-Book
- And by this very fact, this “Mystery of our Faith” [the traditional Mass] overwhelms all the errors of Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, Modernism, and materialistic, socialist and communist secularism. No error can withstand our holy Catholic Mass. The Mass is anti ecumenical, in the sense of ecumenism practiced since the Council: namely, the union of all religions in an amalgam of prayer without dogma, without morality, without specific laws, and agreement based on a few ambiguous slogans like “the rights of man,” “the dignity of man,” “religious liberty.” On the contrary, the Novus Ordo is precisely the banner of this false ecumenism, representing the annihilation of the Catholic religion and the Catholic priesthood. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, February 1982)
- Satan, the father of lies, as Our Lord Jesus calls him, has the extraordinary talent of finding out some words, to which he assigns a new meaning so that from their ambiguity, he achieves acceptance of the destructive falsehood which overthrows the best established societies. He found it in this “ecumenism” of the Council which has created an ecumenical liturgy, an ecumenical Bible, and ecumenical catechism, uniting truth and falsehood – marrying the true and the false. The most disastrous result of this marriage is the Catholic-Protestant Mass, the poisoned source afterwards yielding countless ravages: relinquishment of the Church, of the true Faith, sacrileges, tearing of the unity of the Church, proliferation of diverse sorts of creeds unworthy of the Church.
But, there exists a consequence of which one does not often enough ponder on. It is the destruction of the Catholic nations which no longer find in the Holy Mass, the source of political unity based on the unity of the Catholic Faith. Therefore, the Catholic nation hereafter must, in like manner, convert itself to an ecumenical state – pluralistic, very soon finding itself securalized and neutral, if not atheistic. The ecumencial Mass leads logically to apostasy. One cannot serve two masters, one cannot nourish oneself indifferently from truth or falsehood. It is falsehood that flatters our evil inclinations which will prevail over truth which is more austere and more demanding. One must, at all costs, remain bound to truth without mingling. Pope Pius IX vigorously denounced these liberal Catholics who believe they can unite falsehood and truth, good and evil, in order to please their contemporary fellowmen. Whether this poisoned ecumenism reaches us through the hierarchy or not, the channel is not important – it is the poison that one must refuse to swallow. It is a matter of strict obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Church of all times, to all the successors of Peter. We will, therefore, keep the Catholic liturgy, the Catholic Bible and catechism. ... Each one, at his time in the Church, must endeavour to remain Catholic and to maintain the Catholic Church. It is upon this resolution and its realisation that we will be judged by Our Divine Lord. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1978)
- Because we are surrounded by the ruins caused by the corruption of minds and hearts, the evidence of the vitality of the Church of all time takes on a priceless value. We are permitted to hope that we can restore destroyed altars, that we can offer again the true Sacrifice of the Mass. By contrast, when one lives with an ecumenical Eucharist, democratic and liberal, the auto-destruction continues, despite all the calls to order, the statements most worthy of respect and the most spectacular of ceremonies. “Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum in vanum laboraverunt qui aedificant eam – If the Lord does not construct the building, the builders work in vain.” Therefore, the altar of sacrifice of propitiation, the heritage of the new and eternal testament; the Body and Blood of Jesus are the foundation stone of the Church from whence gush the waters of eternal life. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, October 1979)
- Through Religious Liberty we’ve ended up with Ecumenism, and through that all the ‘reforms’ which have been carried out in the Church, the introduction of Collegiality to please the Protestants and the democratic spirit of our age. Everything came through this acceptance of Religious Liberty and the principles of the modern world. It’s clear, and if we don’t keep that in mind, we cannot understand what took place behind the scenes at the Council, nor what happens today behind the scenes in the Vatican. ... Our Lord came to earth to institute the true religion. There is only one religion. Those who have not converted to it will not be able to enter heaven. Our Lord said to His Apostles: “Go, teach all nations.” He didn’t say: leave the Buddhists alone, the Muslims, the pagans, leave them be. They each have their own religion, no need to bother them. The missionaries went out, they were killed, they shed their blood, they became martyrs. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Madrid, 1986)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebre - On Freemasonry in the Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 01:39 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - On Freemasonry in the Church
- “We must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels, any Catholic revival.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier, pp. 602-603)
- “If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these theses, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon given in 1978)
- "The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below. ... This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. This Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work on the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican on Religious Liberty prove." (Letter to the Future Bishops, August 29, 1987)
- “So we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been condemned by previous popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned…” (Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988)
- “We are dealing with people who have a different philosophy to ours, a different way of seeing, who are influenced by all modern subjectivist philosophers. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is evolving. That is a totally Masonic concept. This is really the destruction of the Faith.” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)
- “A non-aggressive agreement has been made between the Church and masonry. It was covered up by calling it aggiornamento, reaching out to the world, ecumenism.” (Le Figaro, August 2, 1976)
- “There were direct contacts precisely between Cardinal Bea and the Masonic Lodge here in New York and in Washington, with the B'nai Brith, the Jewish Lodge numbering 75,000 members, and with the lodges of the whole world. Why did these contacts take place? Why did Cardinal Bea come in the name of the Vatican, in the name of Rome, to meet these Freemasons? In order that we would accept the “rights of man” at the Council. How could we accept them? By accepting Religious Liberty, which is one of the “rights of man.” Hence, to accept Religious Liberty was in principle to accept the “rights of man” within the Church. Now, the Church has always condemned these declarations on the “rights of man” which have been made against the authority of God.” (Conference, Long Island, New York, November 5, 1983)
- “Everyone knows that in the Vatican an influential liberal-Masonic mafia is active, without whose “placet” [approval] no change is possible. And so we have arrived at the present moment of the Church in which the triumph of Liberalism is being celebrated.” (Fideliter, May 1987, p.17)
- “But, of course, I have no illusions: even if the pope wanted to make those corrections, he could not do so. That “liberal-Masonic mafia” to which I have already alluded cannot tolerate it…all the American newspapers wrote that, before the Council, Cardinal Bea, the founder of the Vatican Secretariat for ecumenism, met the leaders of the most influential Jewish-Masonic lodge at the Hotel Astoria in New York and asked them what they expected of the Council. “A statement on religious liberty,” they told him.” (Fideliter, May 1987, p.17)
- “It's very difficult to say, "This man is a Freemason," "This man is a Freemason," or "This man is a Freemason." We don't know. It's very difficult. It is certain that there are some cardinals, some bishops, cardinals in the Curia, or monsignors or secretaries of congregations in Rome that are Freemasons. That is certain because the Freemasons themselves have said that. They have said that they have in their lodge some priests and bishops. It is certain that there are some cardinals and many monsignors in Rome who do the same work as the Freemasons; they have the same thinking, the same mind. Willebrandt is Prefect of the Secretariat for the Unity of Christians, and Archbishop Silvestrini is the first secretary of Cardinal Casaroli who is Secretary of State—and his right hand is Silvestrini. He is a great power in the Curia. He nominates all the nuncios in the world. He has a very great influence and he is probably a Freemason.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)
- “The City of Rome is no longer a sacred city. This is evident. They have fallen under the thumb of Masonry, and of those liberal ideas - "two centuries" as Cardinal Ratzinger said - and now they are supplying water for the mill of the revolution against Our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
- “Would not Cardinal Suenens be right in declaring that this Council has been the French Revolution of the Church! (I Accuse the Council)
“We know now with whom we have to deal. We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a ‘diabolical hand’ which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church! And this is why we have the right and the duty to refuse this obedience... I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals... “Are you with the Catholic Church?” “Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I dealing?” If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?” (1978 Ordination sermon at Écône)
- “Had we found ourselves in the times of St. Francis of Assisi, the pope would have been in agreement with us. There was not an occupation by Freemasonry of the Vatican in its happier days.” (Albano, October 19, 1983)
- “ I would say that the first sensational event which manifested this opposition even within the Church and within the Roman Curia, between the liberal program - masonic, it must be said - and the program of the Church, of the faith of the Church and of Tradition, is the opposition between Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bea.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)
- “The adoption of liberal theses by a Council could not have occurred except in a non-infallible pastoral Council, and cannot be explained without there having been a secret, detailed preparation which the historians will eventually discover to the great stupefaction of Catholics who confuse the eternal Roman Catholic Church with the human Rome susceptible to infiltration by enemies robed in purple.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)
- "The spirit of Liberalism permeates the Church today, though its catchwords are thinly veiled: liberty is religious freedom; fraternity is ecumenism; equality is collegiality. These are the three principles of Liberalism, the legacy of the 18th century philosophers and of the French Revolution. The Church today is approaching its own destruction because these principles are absolutely contrary to nature and to faith. There is no true equality possible, and Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on freedom clearly explained why.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Luther’s Mass”, February 15th, 1975)
- “If one tries to give a definition, or at least a clear idea of these modernist and liberal ideas, of what do they consist? “The Church is no longer the only true religion.” Here you have one of the truths denied by all these modernists and liberals now. “The Church is no longer the only way of salvation.” This is very grievous, because for twenty centuries the Church has affirmed this: “I am the only way of salvation.” The Church was saying:
“Our Lord Jesus Christ gave me all means of salvation; He did not give them to any other group. He gave His Sacrifice of the Mass, His Sacraments, His teaching and all the care of the salvation of souls to His Apostles, to the Church, and to no other group. Therefore, one cannot be saved outside the Church, at least through Baptism of Desire; one must be baptized, baptized by water or at least by desire; this is necessary to go to Heaven.”
This is what the Church has always preached. Why did She send missionaries throughout the world? To preach: “you must be converted to our Lord Jesus Christ, you must become Christian, you must be baptized and become Catholic if you want to be baptized!” Many missionaries have been killed, slaughtered, all the Apostles have been martyred because they have preached this Gospel, because they have preached the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. But now they say: “No! All religions are ways of salvation.” My dear brethren, this is false, absolutely false! And it is precisely this which changes everything inside the Church. This influence comes from Protestantism and from Freemasonry; one must say it, these are Masonic ideas that the Church must not claim to be the only way of salvation. If the Church wants to be friend with Protestants and Freemasons, She must give up saying that She is the only way of salvation. She must accept to say that all religions are ways of salvation. But this is contrary to what our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said! Our Lord said: “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; he who shall believe shall be saved, he who shall not believe shall be condemned.” No other choice!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference at Campbell, California, January 5th, 1986)
- Liberalism has its own priesthood, in the person of the Freemasons, a priesthood which is secret, organised and extremely effective. There exist thousands and thousands of Freemasons. The exclusively Jewish sect B’nai B’rith, which has contacts in Rome and is frequently in contact with them and was present at the Assisi meeting, they alone have five hundred thousand members worldwide. The Grand Orient too has spread everywhere. ... Liberalism has its own economics, directed by a group of international financiers. To the extent that countries put into practice liberal morals, liberal education, liberal laws, even if they run up enormous debts, they are supported by the International Monetary Fund. ... The Vatican itself has not escaped: it was ruined by international finance. In the time of Cardinal Villot and - alas! - under the protection of John XXIII and thanks to his naivety, the Freemasons penetrated the Pontifical finances through the channel of Mgr. Marcinkus of Banco Ambrosio and the famous P2 lodge. They advised the transfer of Vatican assets to Canada. A banking institution was created with this money. But it was not long before it went bankrupt and the Vatican fortune disappeared. Cardinal Villot did not hide the fact: “We are bankrupt. We have lost everything. We have been forced to fire employees and cut wages.”The Vatican found itself financially on the brink of annihilation. Obviously the Freemasons were pressing and international finance intervened. “Don't worry, we're here. If you need money, here is as much as you want. We will support you.” Even if the Vatican still notes publicly the very poor state of its finances, this support explains the pressure that can be put on Rome for the nomination of new bishops, for the appointment of this or that Cardinal and for imposing everything which the Pope does. It [the Vatican] is now in the service of Masonic liberalism. We have to tell it like it is. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Madrid, 1986)
- [The Archbishop then talked about the role played by Cardinal Bea at the request of B’nai B’rith, and who received a gold medal from them in recognition of the insertion and approval he had obtained for Religious Liberty which they had demanded in the texts of the Council.] As Leo XIII said in Humanum Genus, the goal of Freemasonry is to destroy all Christian institutions, everything which Christendom has given to society, the family, the school, Christian justice and Christian peace. All that has to be destroyed. That’s the devil’s goal: non serviam. I will not serve. I don’t want to obey the law of God. I want Liberty. (ibid.)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - The Modernists in Rome Cannot be Trusted |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 01:35 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - The Modernists in Rome Cannot be Trusted
- “For fifteen years we dialogued to try to put the tradition back in its place of honour, in that place in the Church which it has by right. We ran up against a continual refusal. What Rome grants in favour of this tradition at present is nothing but a purely political gesture, a piece of diplomacy so as to force people into compromise. But it is not a conviction of the benefits of Tradition.” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)
- “When they say they [Dom Gerard and the Fraternity of St. Peter] don’t have to give anything up, that’s false. They have given up the ability to oppose Rome. They cannot say anything anymore. They must remain silent given the favours that have been granted them. It is now impossible for them to expose the errors of the Conciliar Church. Softly, softly they adhere, even be it only by their Profession of Faith that is requested by Cardinal Ratzinger. I think Dom Gérard is about to publish a small book written by one of his monks on Religious Liberty and which will try to justify it. From the point of view of ideas, they begin to slide ever so slowly and end up by admitting the false ideas of the Council, because Rome has granted them some favours of Tradition. It’s a very dangerous situation” (Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)
- “The bishops concerned - the supposedly conservative bishops - are wholly supportive of the Council and of the post-Conciliar reforms, of ecumenism and of the charismatic movement. Apparently, they are being a little more moderate and showing slightly more traditional religious sentiment, but it does not go deep. The great fundamental principles of the Council, the errors of the Council, they accept them and put them into practice. That is no problem for them. On the contrary, I would go so far as to say that it is these conservative bishops who treat us the worst. It is they who would the most insistently demand that we submit to the principles of the Council.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
- “For them there is no question of abandoning the New Mass. On the contrary. That is obvious. That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
- “I admit that the optimism I showed regarding the Council and the Pope was ill-founded.” (Letter to Andre Cagnon, January 6, 1988, Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography, p.331)
- “There will be possibly other manifestations of putting the brakes on by the Vatican; and it is very, very dangerous for us to "rally" ourselves now. No rallying, no rallying to the liberals; no rallying to the ecclesiastics who are governing in the Church now and who are liberals; there is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us on the Mass of St. Pius V - certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually... They must give us back everything. They must give up their liberalism, they must come back to the real truth of the Church, to the faith of the Church, to the basic principles of the Church, of this total dependence of society, of families, of individuals on Our Lord Jesus Christ! At that moment when they give us the Mass of all times, very well, then, we are completely in agreement. Then there will be a perfect understanding, we will be able to be recognized, and we will have no more scruples. But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas.” (Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre to the priests of the District of France. Dec. 13, 1984)
- The cardinal informed us that we would now have to allow one New Mass to be celebrated [weekly] at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet. He insisted on the one and only Church, that of Vatican II. (Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre on the “cessation of negotiations,” June 19, 1988)
- “That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.” (Sermon June 30, 1988)
- “For them, their goal is to divide Tradition. They already have Dom Augustin, they have de Blignièreres, and now they have Dom Gérard. This weakens our position still further. It is their goal: divide to make us disappear.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)
- “These are fabrications. If ever there were a willingness from Rome to resume discussions, this time, I will be the one to set down the conditions. As Cardinal Oddi said, “Archbishop Lefebvre is in a strong position.” That is why I will demand that the discussions concern doctrinal points. They have to stop with their ecumenism, they have to bring back the true meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring back the Catholic meaning of collegiality, and so on. I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of religious liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus (Pius IX). They must accept all this, because this is from now on the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)
- “It is imperative to know that today Rome is at the service of the revolution and therefore terribly anti-traditional. That is why I refused to put myself in their hands. They only wanted that, by recognizing my mistakes, I help them continue their revolution in the Church – no more, no less. All those who have left us are not aware of the situation and believe in the good will and the rectitude of thought of the bishops or cardinals in Rome. Nothing is further from the truth! ‘It is not possible for them to lead us into the revolution,’ say those who agree with the Pope and his bishops. Well, that is exactly what will happen.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)
- “And I even wrote to him [Dom Gerard]. We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council; we must not have relations with them. Dom Gérard replied that his case was different and that he would try anyway. I do not approve.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)
- “It is time to take a second decision to face up to this Rome. What else can we do? And if they insist that it is worse this time round, because this time it could mean excommunication, well, I reply that the basic problem remains unchanged: Rome means to exterminate Tradition.” (Recommendations to the Four Bishops-Elect, June 12, 1988)
- “I think that it is that outlook that should guide us in our present situation. Let us not deceive ourselves by believing that by these little braking actions that are given on the right and on the left, in the excesses of the present situation, that we are seeing a complete return to Tradition. That is not true, that is not true. They remain always liberal minds. It is always the liberals who rule Rome, and they remain liberal. But, as the Cardinal says, they have gone a bit too far; they have to find a little balance.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
- “Upon reflection, it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings.” (Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 24, 1988)
- “It is obvious that by putting themselves in the hands of the present Conciliar authorities, they [Ecclesia Dei priests] implicitly accept the Council and the reforms that came from it, even if they receive privileges which remain exceptional and provisional. Their acceptance stops them saying anything. The bishops are watching them.” (Letter to Fr. Daniel Couture, March 18, 1989)
- “Then there are some who would be ready to sacrifice the fight for the Faith, by saying: Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us do everything to re-enter in the official public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about our dogmatic problem. Let us be silent about our fight. Let us not speak about the malice of the [new] Mass anymore. Let us close our mouths and say nothing anymore. Let’s not be opposed to that. Let’s not say anything anymore about the issues of religious liberty, of human rights and of ecumenism. Let’s be silent. Let’s be silent and like that we will be able to re-enter into the structure of the Church. We will please those who are in the Church. We are going to re-enter like that into the Church, and once we will be inside the Church, you will see, we will be able to fight, we will be able to do this, we will be able to do that… This is absolutely false! You don’t enter into a structure and under superiors, saying that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.” (Conference December 21, 1984)
- “We cannot place ourselves under an authority which has liberal ideas, which will necessarily lead us, little by little, by force of circumstances, to accept liberal ideas and all the consequences of these liberal ideas, which are the new Mass, the changes in the liturgy, the changes in the Bible, the changes in the catechism – all the changes… We say: But they fought against the catechism!... This is simply ‘putting on the brakes’ because it goes so far that it was necessary to ‘put on the brakes’ a bit. And the same for the theology of liberation, the same for all that is happening now in the Church and which, of course, frightens them a bit. The consequences of their own principles frighten them. So they ‘put on the brakes’ on the right and on the left, but they are determined to keep liberal ideas. There is no question of changing the liberal ideas.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)
- “Although Conciliar Rome’s lying has often been proven to be a fact, it is never useless [for them] to try, since they will always find some who will take the bait.” (Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)
- “Most of our priests, seminarians and faithful do not delude themselves and are convinced that it is impossible to trust the authorities of the Conciliar Church for as long as they profess such errors.”(Letter to Mgr. de Galarreta and priests, seminarians and faithful in South America, July 16, 1989)
- Fideliter: Since the Episcopal Consecrations in June of 1988 there have been no more contacts with Rome, however, as you told us, Cardinal Oddi telephoned you saying: “We must come to an agreement. Make a little apology to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you”. Then why not try this final step, and why does it seem impossible to you?
Archbishop Lefebvre: It is absolutely impossible in the present climate in Rome which is becoming worse and worse. We must be under no illusions. The principles now directing the Conciliar Church are more and more openly contrary to Catholic doctrine. … Lastly, the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. All the false ideas of the Council are continuing to develop and to be re-stated with ever more clarity. They are more and more coming out into the open. It is therefore absolutely unthinkable that we should accept to collaborate with such a hierarchy. (Fideliter no. 79 January – February 1991)
- Fideliter: But there are traditionalists who have made an agreement with Rome without conceding anything.
Archbishop Lefebvre: "That is false. They have waived their opportunity to oppose Rome. They must remain silent because of the favors that have been granted. Then they start to slip ever so slowly until they end up admitting the errors of Vatican II. It is a very dangerous situation. Such concessions Roma aim only to get the break with the SSPX traditionalists and submit to Rome." (Fideliter No. 79, January 1991, shortly before his death in March 1991)
- “… supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put in conditions. I shall not accept being in the position I was put in during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo X III, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with the popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti- Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of the these popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless. Thus, the positions will be clear.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview with Fideliter Magazine, Nov.-Dec. 1988)
- “No, I shall not give the Church’s destroyers an easy conscience by handing over the them what belongs only to God, to the Faithful, to the Church of all time. This is what makes our situation with the Vatican appear deadlocked. The time will come when the Church will triumph as she has always done. What are a few years, or a few tens of years, compared with eternity? As I said to you a little while ago, all we need do is wait.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Stock, Paris)
- The Enduring Dilemma – Archbishop Lefebvre perceived the dilemma: either capitulate to tyranny under pretext of obedience, or else resist tyranny by rejecting false obedience. “If this government [the Conciliar Church] abandons its duty and turns against the Faith, what ought we to do? Remain attached to the government, or attached to the Faith? We have a choice. Does the Faith take precedence? Or is it the government that takes precedence? We are faced with a dilemma and we are indeed obliged to make a choice.” The choice was made and the defense of the Faith prevailed over false obedience. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily at Econe for the Chrismal Mass of Holy Thursday, March 27, 1986)
- “Let us keep the Faith above all else it is for this that our Lord died, because He affirmed His divinity. It is for this that all the martyrs died. It is by this that all the elect are sanctified. Let us flee from those who make us lose the Faith or diminish it.” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, from his book Spiritual Journey)
- “We are told, ‘You are alone and isolated.’ Not at all! We have on our side all the Church’s past, hundreds of Popes, all the saints and all those who did what we are doing… We should have no fear, we are built on a rock which does not depend on us. If it depended on us, we might be afraid: then it would be me and my ideas. I would have invented something; I would have given rise to something new. But that is not so. That is not the case with us… If we ever abandoned the Faith, we would abandon them.” (Archbishop Lefebvre. September 1988)
- “And so the question arose to know what I should do. I went to Richenbach to see the Superior General [Fr. Franz Schmidberger] and his assistants to ask them: What do you think? Should we accept the hand being offered to us? Or do we refuse it? “for myself, personally”, I said, “I have no confidence in them.” […] However, I do not wish people within the Society and Traditional circles to be able to say afterwards, you could easily have tried, it would have cost you nothing to enter into discussion and dialogue.” That was the opinion of the Superior General and his assistants. They said, “You must take into consideration the offer which is being made and not neglect it. It’s still worthwhile to talk with them.” Lefebvre concluded: “We cannot follow those people. They’re in apostasy, they do not believe in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ who must reign. What is the use in waiting? Let’s do the consecration! I suggest the date of the feast of Christ the King October 25, 1987.” (pg. 549, Marcel Lefebvre by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais)
- “When I asked why he [Lefebvre] had signed the agreement in the first place, he said: “That’s what they [the chief SSPX priests] all wanted. But then when I was by myself, alone, I realized that we couldn’t trust it.” (Dom Gerard Calvert, Abbot of Le Barraoux, close friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, interview with “30 Days”, Winter 1995)
- Q&A – Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991:
Fideliter: Since the coronations there is no more contact with Rome; however, Cardinal Oddi who phoned you and said, “You must work it out. Have a little forgiveness to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you” So why not try the ultimate approach and why do you think it impossible?
Archbishop Lefebvre: “It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome which is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. Principles who now run the Conciliar Church are increasingly, openly, contrary to Catholic doctrine. Finally the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with [such] a hierarchy.”
Fideliter: Do you think the situation has deteriorated further since you had – before the consecrations – engaged in conversations that led to the drafting of the Protocal of May 5, 1988?
Archbishop Lefebvre: “Oh yes! For example the fact that the profession of faith which is now [pushed] by Cardinal Ratzinger since the beginning of 1989. This is a very serious matter. Because it asks all those who joined or could do, to make a profession of faith in the documents of the Council and the post-Conciliar reforms. For us it is impossible. For my part, I believe that only God can intervene as humanly we do not see opportunities to Rome to redress the current.”
Fideliter: You said, pointing to Dom Gerard and others: “They betrayed us. They now give a hand to those who demolish the Church, the liberals, the modernists.” Is not that a bit harsh?
Archbishop Lefebvre: “But no! […] It is with a heavy heart that we have trouble with Rome. It’s not with pleasure that we had to fight. We did it for principles, to keep the Catholic Faith. And they were to agree with us. They cooperated with us. And then suddenly they abandon the true combat to ally with the demolishers on the pretext that they be given some privileges. This is unacceptable. They have virtually abandoned the fight of the faith. They cannot attack Rome.”
Fideliter: What can you say to those of the faithful who still hope in the possibility of an agreement with Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre: “Our true believers, those who have understood the problem and that we have just worked to continue straight and firm on tradition and faith, feared the efforts I made to Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute Rome [would show] a little bit of loyalty to what we testify. You cannot blame me for not having done the maximum. So now, [there are] those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I think I can say that I went even further that I should have.”
- “Truth is not made by numbers: numbers do not make the truth. Even if I am alone, and even if I am abandoned by the whole of public opinion, it is all the same to me. I am attached to my catechism, my credo, attached to Tradition which sanctified all the saints in Heaven. What matters is fidelity to our Faith. We should have that conviction and stay calm.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon)
- “We want to remain untied to Jesus Christ, as the Vatican has dethroned the Lord. We want to remain faithful to our Lord King, Prince and Ruler of the world. We cannot change anything in this line of conduct.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Flavigny, conference, Dec. 1988)
- “So, when we raise the question of when there will be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: When Rome again crowns our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot agree with those who dethrone the Lord. The day they again recognize our Lord as King of peoples and nations, it is not us who will join them, but they who will come back to the Catholic Church in which we remain.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 68, March 1989)
- "Rome is in Apostasy! We cannot have any confidence in them! They have lost the faith!" (Archbishop Lefebvre)
- “Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign [the May 5, 1988 Protocol] that you accept everything; and then you can continue as before!’ No! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”…To ask this of us is to ask us to collaborate in the disappearance of the Faith. Impossible!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “They Have Uncrowned Him” Abp. Lefebvre, ch. 31, p. 230).
- “Even if at the moment he is keeping quiet, one or another of these bishops will receive from the Holy Ghost the courage needed to arise in his turn. If my work is of God, He will guard it and use it for the good of the Church. Our Lord has promised us, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her. This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this: At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me, “What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?” I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words, “You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”, chapter 23)
- "Do not be surprised if we do not understand with Rome. This is not possible while Rome will not return to faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ ... We crashed at a point of the Catholic faith." (Sierre Conference on November 27, 1988; Fideliter No 89)
- “Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. It is not just words, it is not just words in the air that I say to you. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy. One cannot have confidence any more in this world. He [the pope] has left the Church; they have left the Church; they are leaving the Church; It is sure, sure, sure! I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that you cannot say that the pope is not the pope”. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987)
Against putting Ourselves under Modernist Bishops
- “Every Catholic can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith, the Faith of the Eternal Church, upheld by his childhood catechism. The defense of his Faith is the first duty of every Christian, more especially of every priest and bishop. Wherever an order carries with it the danger of corrupting Faith and morals, “disobedience” becomes a grave duty.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, no. 9, 1975).
- “Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign [the May 5, 1988 Protocol] that you accept everything; and then you can continue as before!’ No! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”…To ask this of us is to ask us to collaborate in the disappearance of the Faith. Impossible!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. ch. 31, p. 230).
- “It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome which is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. Principles which now run the Conciliar Church are increasingly, openly, contrary to Catholic doctrine. Finally the Pope is more ecumenical than ever. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with [such] a hierarchy.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991)
- “And so the question arose to know what I should do. I went to Richenbach to see the Superior General [Fr. Franz Schmidberger] and his assistants to ask them: What do you think? Should we accept the hand being offered to us? Or do we refuse it? “for myself, personally”, I said, “I have no confidence in them.” […] However, I do not wish people within the Society and Traditional circles to be able to say afterwards, you could easily have tried, it would have cost you nothing to enter into discussion and dialogue.” That was the opinion of the Superior General and his assistants. They said, “You must take into consideration the offer which is being made and not neglect it. It’s still worthwhile to talk with them.” Lefebvre concluded: “We cannot follow those people. They’re in apostasy, they do not believe in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ who must reign. What is the use in waiting? Let’s do the consecration! I suggest the date of the feast of Christ the King October 25, 1987.” (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. Marcel Lefebvre. Kansas City: Angelus Press. p. 549)
- “Let us keep the Faith above all else. It is for this that Our Lord died, because He affirmed His Divinity. It is for this that all the martyrs died. It is by this that all the elect are sanctified. Let us flee from those who make us lose the Faith or diminish it.” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, Kansas City: Angelus Press. p.68)
- “It is obvious that by putting themselves in the hands of the present Conciliar authorities, they [Ecclesia Dei priests] implicitly accept the Council and the reforms that came from it, even if they receive privileges which remain exceptional and provisional. Their acceptance stops them saying anything. The bishops are watching them.” (Letter to Fr. Daniel Couture, March 18, 1989)
- “Then there are some who would be ready to sacrifice the fight for the Faith, by saying: Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us do everything to re-enter in the official public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about our dogmatic problem. Let us be silent about our fight. Let us not speak about the malice of the [new] Mass anymore. Let us close our mouths and say nothing anymore. Let’s not be opposed to that. Let’s not say anything anymore about the issues of Religious Liberty, of Human Rights and of Ecumenism. Let’s be silent. Let’s be silent and like that we will be able to re-enter into the structure of the Church. We will please those who are in the Church. We are going to re-enter like that into the Church, and once we will be inside the Church, you will see, we will be able to fight, we will be able to do this, we will be able to do that… This is absolutely false! You don’t enter into a structure and under superiors, saying that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Conciliar Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 12:43 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre - On the new Conciliar Church
- "This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church." (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
- “To be publicly associated with this sanction [of excommunication] which is inflicted upon the six Catholic Bishops, Defenders of the Faith in its integrity and wholeness, would be for us a mark of honor and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful. They have indeed a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church, promoting evolution, pentecostalism and syncretism.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)
- “We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this. We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)
- "It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church." (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976)
- “It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)
- “John Paul II now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.”(Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)
- “What could be clearer? We must henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)
- “I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747)
- “Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church - what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects. Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the world's bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing...” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
- “This talk about the "visible Church" on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the "visible Church", meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
- “That is no longer the Catholic Church: that is the Conciliar Church with all its unpleasant consequences.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August 1989)
- “Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)
- “But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, p.547)
- “How can one avoid the conclusion: there where the faith of the Church is, there also is her sanctity, and there where the sanctity of the Church is, there is the Catholic Church. A Church which no longer brings forth good fruits, a Church which is sterile, is not the Catholic Church.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 8, 1978)
- “I remark, first of all, that the expression "Conciliar Church" comes not from me but from H.E. Mgr. Benelli who, in an official letter, asked that our priests and seminarians should submit themselves to the "Conciliar Church." I consider that a spirit tending to Modernism and Protestantism shows itself in the conception of the new Mass and in all the Liturgical Reform as well. Protestants themselves say that it is so, and Mgr. Bugnini himself admits it implicitly when he states that this Liturgical Reform was conceived in an ecumenical spirit.” (Conference, January 11, 1979)
- “The magisterium of today is not sufficient by itself to be called Catholic unless it is the transmission of the Deposit of Faith, that is, of Tradition. A new magisterium without roots in the past, and all the more if it is opposed to the magisterium of all times, can only be schismatic and heretical. The permanent will to annihilate Tradition is a suicidal will, which justifies, by its very existence, true and faithful Catholics when they make the decision necessary for the survival of the Church and the salvation of souls. Our Lady of Fatima, I am sure, blesses this final appeal in this 70th anniversary of her apparitions and messages. May you not be for a second time deaf to her appeal.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, July 8, 1987, Excerpt from the Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger)
- “Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible' - these things we do not accept.” (Sermon, July 29, 1976)
- “…since they have put us out of an official Church which is not the real Church, [but] an official Church which has been infested with Modernism; and so we believed in the duty of disobedience, if indeed it was disobedience! To obey, but to obey the immemorial Church, to obey all the popes, to obey the whole Catholic Church…” (Ordination Sermon, June 27, 1980)
- “It is easy to think that whoever opposes the Council and its new Gospel would be considered as excommunicated, as outside communion with the Church. But one may well ask them, communion with what Church? They would answer, no doubt, with the Conciliar Church.” (I Accuse the Council, p. xiii)
- “Henceforth, the Church no longer accepts the one true Church, the only way of eternal salvation. It recognizes the other religions as “sister religions”. It recognizes as a right derived from the nature of the human person that “man is free to choose his religion,” and consequently the Catholic State is no longer admissible. Once this new principle is admitted, then all the doctrine of the Church must change: its worship, its priesthood, its institutions. For until now, everything in the Church manifested that she alone possesses the Truth, the Way, the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom she possesses in person in the Holy Eucharist, present, thanks to the continuation of His Sacrifice. The complete overthrow of the entire tradition and teaching of the Church has been brought about since the Council by the Council. All those who operate in the implementation of this overthrow accept and adhere to this new “Conciliar Church”, as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designates it in the letter he addressed to me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25th, and enter into schism.” (Conference, Econe, August 2, 1976)
- “The Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and, as a result of these errors, it has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false church is in a ever-deeper state of rupture with the Catholic Church. Resulting on theses principles and facts is the absolute need to continue the Catholic episcopacy in order to continue the Catholic Church. … This is how the succession of the bishops came about in the early Church in union with Rome, as we are too in union with Catholic Rome and not modernist Rome.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon)
- “It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13)
- “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 [Conciliar] 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.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon at Lille, France, August 1976)
- “We are now faced with a grave choice: either we agree with the Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, and thus oppose the teachings of the Popes, or we agree with the teachings of the popes, and thus disagree with Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom. It is impossible to subscribe to both. I have made my choice: I choose Tradition. I cling to Tradition over novelty which is merely an expression of Liberalism, the very Liberalism condemned by the Holy See for a century and a half. Now this Liberalism has penetrated the Church through the Council, and its catchwords remain the same; liberty, equality and fraternity. The spirit of Liberalism permeates the Church today, though its catchwords are thinly veiled: Liberty is Religious Freedom; Fraternity is Ecumenism; Equality is Collegiality. These are the three principles of Liberalism, the legacy of the 18th century philosophers and of the French Revolution. The [Conciliar] Church today is approaching its own destruction because these principles are absolutely contrary to nature and to faith. There is no true equality possible, and Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on freedom clearly explained why.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Luther’s Mass”, February 15th, 1975)
- Sadly recognising that the consequences of the conciliar revolution seems to be intent on becoming institutionalised and supplant the true Catholic institutions with the risk of arriving at the same results as in political society, which is sinking into a state of permanent revolution, our resolution to maintain and develop the divine institutions of the Church should be more firm than ever, for if political institutions can disappear, this can never happen to the Church. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1981)
- It is because the novelties which have invaded the Church since the Council diminish the adoration and the honor due to Our Lord, and implicitly throw doubt upon His divinity, that we refuse them. These novelties do not come from the Holy Ghost, nor from His Church, but from those who are imbued with the spirit of Modernism, and with all the errors which convey this spirit, condemned with so much courage and energy by St. Pius X. This holy Pope said to the bishops of France with regard to the Sillon movement: “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but the men of tradition.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, April 1980)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Modernist Orientation of the Conciliar Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 12:39 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Modernist Orientation of the Conciliar Church
- “Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, "Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the pope?" Yes, if Rome and the pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the popes of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, of course. But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)
- “Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, "So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem." But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)
- “There are those who are for the Syllabus and Pascendi, and there are those who are against. It is simple. It is clear. Those who are against are adopting the principles of the French Revolution, the modern errors. Those who are for the Syllabus and Pascendi remain within the true Faith, within Catholic doctrine. Now you know very well that Cardinal Ratzinger has said that as far as he is concerned Vatican II is "an anti-Syllabus". Therewith the cardinal placed himself clearly amongst those who are against the Syllabus. If then he is against the Syllabus, he is adopting the principles of the Revolution. Besides, he goes on to say quite clearly: "Indeed we have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened herself up to, principles which are not hers but which come from modern society," i.e., as everyone understands, the principles of 1789, the Rights of Man.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)
- “I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, -isn’t that right - did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations.” (Conference, September 22, 1988)
- “I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions. You are working to de-Christianize society, the human person and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’ (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p. 548)
- “I waited until June 5th to write to the Pope: I regret, but we cannot go along with this. You do not have the same goal as us. In making an accord, your goal is to bring us back to the Council. Mine, on the other hand, is to keep us outside the Council and your influence.” (Flavigny, France, December 1988, Fideliter No. 68, p.15)
- “But however it may be, we are convinced of this, it is they who are wrong, who have changed course, who have broken with the Tradition of the Church, who have rushed into novelties, we are convinced of this. That is why we do not rejoin them and why we cannot work with them; we cannot collaborate with the people who depart from the spirit of the Church, from the Tradition of the Church.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
- “We are not up against a little thing. It is not enough for them to tell us: “You may say the old Mass, but you have to accept it [the Council].” No, it is not only that [the Mass] which divides us, it’s doctrine. That’s clear. That is what is so serious about Dom Gerard’s [choice], and that’s what did him in. Dom Gerard never saw anything but the liturgy and monastic life. He does not see clearly the theological problems with the Council, with religious freedom. He does not see the malice of these errors.” (Fideliter No.66, September-October 1988, pp. 12-14)
- “This new faith, it is a new religion. It is a protestant religion. That is a fact! How is it possible that the Pope gives the authorization to this change? How is it possible that the Pope can sign this constitution [on liturgical change]? It is a deep mystery.” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
- “My dear friends, you continue to represent the true Church, the Catholic Church. I think you need to he convinced of this: You really represent the Catholic church! I don’t say there is no Church outside of us, it’s not about that. But recently, we are told that it was necessary that the Tradition enter into the visible Church. I think a very, very serious mistake is committed here. Where is the visible Church? The visible Church is recognized by the marks that have always been given to visibility: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. I ask: Where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more evident in the official Church (this is not the visible church, it is the official church) or in us, in what we represent, what we are? Clearly we are the ones who preserve the Unity of the Faith which disappeared from the official church. One bishop believes in this, the other not, faith is different, their catechisms contain abominable heresies. Where is the unity of the Faith in Rome?” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Econe, Sept. 9, 1988)
- “We tremble at the thought that the infiltration of modernism, that is to say naturalism, may continue in the Church. The consequences of this veritable cancer are the most serious that the Church has had to undergo during the course of her history; that is, the corruption of the Faith of numerous bishops and a great number of priests, monks and nuns. These clerics reason like the modernists and the protestants: witness the newly published book “Bishops Speak of the Faith of the Catholic Church.” The ideas of sanctifying grace, original sin, mortal sin and its consequences, of the expiatory Sacrifice of Our Lord which continues on our altars, are all spoiled. In their place one finds all the errors of liberalism, of Americanism, of Sillonism, and of modernism condemned by the Sovereign Pontiffs. Add to that the theology of liberation which is a marxist interpretation of the Gospel—a sacriligious and outrageous misinterpretation of Our Lord. Therefore, let us not be amazed that the patience of God is exhausted!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 15)
- The Catholic Church will not be occupied forever by the Modernists and progressives who are taking advantage of their authority to push through all these innovations destroying the Faith. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 1981)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Second Vatican Council |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 12:34 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Vatican II Council
- “The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, Collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism… A wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy! Very grave! A total perversion! How we are going to get out of all this, I have no idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows (who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy Father's thought), it is truly frightening. So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)
- “…it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy, despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.” (from I Accuse the Council)
- “We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
- “It is stupefying to read in the Documentation Catholique that the Lutheran-Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther…” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
- “Some say the Council was good and has good, but only the reform is bad. But that is not true! Why? Because when Rome gave the reform, they always say the reforms they do, they do in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all reform came from the Council, and if the reform is bad, it is impossible that the Council is good and all reforms are bad. Because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome!” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
- “This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible.” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
- “We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. ... This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt. It comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform. ... That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council.” (Declaration of Faith, November 21, 1974)
- “We can think that there is Rome and Rome: [on one hand,] there is the Rome which is eternal in Her Faith, Her Dogmas, Her concept of the Sacrifice of the Mass; [on the other hand,] there is the temporal Rome which is influenced by the ideas of the modern world, an influence which the Council itself did not escape.” (October 13, 1974)
- “The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is religious freedom, it is ecumenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
- "Without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church." The Angelus A Matter of Principle
- “I never…I don’t accept the Council! Because you are destroying the Catholic State in the name of the Council! It is sure! It is evident!…This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible…This new faith, it is a new religion. It is a protestant religion. That is a fact! How is it possible that the Pope gives the authorization to this change? How it is possible that the pope can sign this constitution (on liturgical change)? It is a deep mystery…If I take the position of the Council, I am betraying my Mother Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, conference, 1976)
- We [Bishop de Castro Mayer and the Archbishop] fought together to prevent the errors of Liberalism, which are a cancer in the doctrine of the Church, spreading themselves in the texts of the Council. ... Unfortunately, this Liberal principle has been adopted by Vatican II. ... If one does not want to believe that these texts are Liberal, one has just to see the consequences: ecumenism (all religion on an equal footing), and the laicization of the states. Ordination Sermon 1988
- And, so I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger], "What is the source of these bad fruits? For me, it is the Council of aggiornamento; that signifies the Council of the changes. What changes? Changes in the sacraments, changes in catechisms, changes in the Bible, so that we are no longer Catholics [but] are like Protestants. ... And he said, "No! No, no, no, that does not come from the Council; it comes from bad interpretations of the Council; it comes from abuses of the reforms." I said, "That is not true. That comes from the new orientation of the Church in the Council, especially by ecumenism." Changes in the Sacraments...We are like Protestants 1985
- “It is stupefying to read in the Documentation Catholique that the Lutheran-Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther…” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
- The Church has always dreaded novelties, even in her vocabulary and that is why she has held on so strongly to the Latin language in the principal form of Tradition, viz. the Roman Church. For it is by a tendency to novelty that heresies, schisms, and errors have come about. This spirit of novelty, mutation, and change has succeeded in entering into the Church. It necessarily tends to destroy Tradition. The Second Vatican Council, which wished to be the Council of "up-dating," opened the door to this spirit of change and novelty. (Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter)
- The Council should have been the occasion of the reaffirmation of the Truth of the Church and the necessity of the social reign of Jesus and Mary against the errors of Protestantism and Teilhardian naturalism and against socialism and communism. Ordinary Protestants would have been converted en masse. They were disposed to it and their debacle was profound on the eve of the Council. But the Modernists, traitors to the Church, used the Council to favor their compromise with all the modern errors, profiting from a weak pope and a pope disposed to radical changes. All of the commentators on the Council recognize the triumph of the liberals who did not hide their satisfaction and who neutralized or drove from the Roman Curia all of the conservatives and who took the reins of government, centralizing power in the Secretariat of State in order to be certain of managing the ecumenical revolution so much desired by the enemies of the Church. The work was quickly carried out in all fields. Destruction also followed quickly. In this pastoral Council the spirit of error and lies was able to work at its ease, placing time-bombs everywhere which, in due course, would destroy the institutions. (Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Indult |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 12:06 PM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Indult Mass
“I myself also during these years have not ceased asking of Rome: leave us this liberty! And so, faced with the insistence of many people, and mine also, they finally decided to do something. Unfortunately however they have added to it incredible conditions. It's absolutely unimaginable, after all this, to be interrogating people on their opinion: Do you reject the New Mass? If you reject the New Mass, then you don't have the right to say the old one. ...To my mind, this decree is a typical example of the present mentality at Rome, the progressive mentality. This is a progressive decree; it is not a traditional decree where Rome would act out of consideration for the holiness of the Mass, for the holiness of the faithful, for the apostolate and good of souls, the glory of God. No, it's not that. It's pure politics. They conducted a referendum . . . a poll . . . to see who were in agreement; because there was still a small group holding out, they decided to make a concession, but to also add some conditions. That is politics, the same kind they practice in democracies—it's not supernatural at all. (Archbishop Lefebvre, The Church, The Priesthood and the Tridentine Indult, 1984)
" ...the religious authorities would only grant this freedom [of the Indult] on condition that the traditional Mass not be celebrated out of contempt for the New Rite. They would require priests to say the New Mass at least once in a while. It is difficult not to descry in the arrangement of the conditions a maneuver destined to put pressure on traditional priests to convince them to celebrate the New Mass.” sspx.org/en/archbishop-lefebvre-indult-mass
[*]
“Availing ourselves of the Indult is tantamount to putting ourselves into a state of contradiction because at the same time that Rome gives the Fraternity of St. Peter, for example, or Le Barroux Abbey and other groups authorization to say the Mass of All Time, they also require young priests to sign a profession of faith in which the spirit of the Council must be accepted. It is a contradiction: the spirit of the Council is embodied in the New Mass. How is it possible to desire to preserve the Mass of all time while accepting the spirit that destroys this Mass of All Time? It is completely contradictory.” sspx.org/en/archbishop-lefebvre-indult-mass
“One day, very gently, they will oblige those who have been granted the use of the Tridentine Mass, the Mass of All Time, also to accept the New Mass. And they will tell them that it is simply a matter of squaring themselves with what they have signed, since they signed a statement that they accepted the spirit of the Council and its reforms. You cannot put yourself thus into an unbelievable, irrational contradiction. It is a very uncomfortable situation. This is what has created the difficulty for these groups that have signed it and that currently find themselves in a kind of impasse." (Homily, Friedrichshafen, April 29, 1990) sspx.org/en/archbishop-lefebvre-indult-mass
“Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says"—but they are betraying us—betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.” (Two Years After the Consecration, September 6, 1990)
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Novus Ordo Missae |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 11:04 AM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - On The Novus Ordo Missae [the New Mass]
- “And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)
- “I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass." (Conference April 11, 1990)
- “The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.” (Spiritual Journey, p. ix)
- “It is the new Mass in itself. It is not the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes. It doesn’t change anything in the rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants. That is clear! (April 11, 1990)
- “This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)
- “It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.…All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.” (The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979)
- “… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here:
"It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to Protestantism,”
and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecumenist.” (Conference, April 11, 1990)
- "This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union — adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ... The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests." (Homily preached at Lille, August29, 1976)
- “The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)
- “Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and Canon Law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch. 4)
- “The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat)
- “We must not forget that the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, the reforms of the Bible, the changes in the internal structure of the Church, of the constitution of the Church—all these things are a result of the ecumenical spirit. That is clear, since Protestants were present for the changes in the Mass—six Protestant ministers were photographed with Pope Paul VI who thanked them for having come to participate in the liturgical commission, which transformed our Catholic Mass! Everything was done in this ecumenical spirit: liturgical reforms, catechetical reforms, an ecumenical Bible—which is sold in the bookstore at the Vatican. There was then, a considerable Protestant influence.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
- “…if they are going to the New Mass—slowly, slowly they change their mind and become, slowly, slowly Protestant. It is very dangerous to go to the New Mass regularly, each week, because the New Mass is not some accidental change, but it is a whole orientation, a new definition of the Mass. It has not the same definition as the True Mass.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)
- “… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981)
- “The consequences of this state of mind or spirit spread within the Church, inside the Church, are deplorable, and are ruining and sapping the spiritual vitality of the Church. In conscience, all we can do is turn priests and faithful away from using the Novus Ordo Missae if we wish that the complete and whole Catholic Faith remains still living.” (Letter to John Paul II, April 5, 1983 - Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference #1, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, April 24, 1983)
- In many cases, Masses by their translation, by the intention (of the celebrant), for many reasons are probably no longer valid. But, nevertheless, personally, I have always said, in fact, that if the Mass was said according to the rite approved by Pope Paul VI, in Latin, and with the intention of doing what the Church does, and, obviously, with the (valid) matter also, by a priest who is a real Catholic priest, I think that the Mass is in effect valid, although it does not necessarily follow that because it is valid we must inevitably attend it. ...
My judgment is, given that this [New] Mass, as I had occasion to remark when interrogated by the Holy Office, is that this Mass is a Mass which has been poisoned, and one cannot oblige a person in conscience to receive poison. Consequently, if these people do not wish to go to Mass on Sunday, for example, because they are aware that it is a poison for their souls, they are certainly not committing a mortal sin. ...
What we can say, objectively, as a general rule, is that it is a danger to the faith to attend such Masses. Subjectively, we must take into consideration the individual, and consequently we must know how to judge as a (good) pastor and not only purely in an objective manner, as if we had nothing to do with human beings who find themselves by consequences in diverse circumstances. ... Obviously, the orthodoxy of the priest does not change the quality or the situation of the New Mass. (Even if a priest is well intentioned, a doubtful Mass will remain doubtful.) This is what they tell me in Rome: "You say that the Mass of the Pope is not good; you say that the Mass of certain cardinals is not good." I must reply "yes," because this concerns an objective question, that this Mass was made with the help of Protestants, finalized in a spirit of ecumenical protestantism, and that the essential elements of the Mass are tainted more or less. Consequently, the faith is no longer expressed as it should be expressed, in such a way that the people finish by having an ecumenical spirit and a Protestant spirit, which is excessively dangerous. (Interview with the Houston Chronicle, May 1983)
- "... we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. For if the most holy Church has wished to guard throughout the centuries this precious treasure which She has given us of the rite of Holy Mass which was canonized by Saint Pius V, it has not been without purpose. It is because this Mass contains our whole faith, the whole Catholic Faith: faith in the Most Holy Trinity, faith in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Redemption of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which flowed for the redemption of our sins, faith in supernatural grace, which comes to us from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which comes to us from the Cross, which comes to us through all the Sacraments.
This is what we believe. This is what we believe in celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of all time. It is a lesson of faith and at the same time a source of our faith, indispensable for us in this age when our faith is attacked from all sides. We have need of this true Mass, of this Mass of all time of this Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ really to fill our souls with the Holy Ghost and with the strength of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion." (Ordination Sermon, July 29, 1976)
- [As we], on the other hand, do not cease to affirm: the new Mass has been made in collaboration with the Protestants in order to please them; it still has a Protestant definition and produces Protestants. These reasons are more than sufficient for not giving it the titles reserved to the Catholic Mass of all time in its various rites. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1983)
The New Mass is Intrinsically Evil
- In April 1974, before the Archbishop had reached a decision about the New Mass, he stated:
“Is the Mass really intrinsically evil? If the Mass was intrinsically evil, intrinsically, I say, well one cannot do an intrinsically evil act, an intrinsically evil act is always forbidden: But if the Mass is not intrinsically evil, but is evil by circumstances, by what surrounds it, by certain prayers, because the Mass is not what it should be, and so as circumstances can change, can be modified, ... it is obvious that with them, I think it is better to abstain, not to go to Mass for a whole month rather than go to Masses like that, that's for sure!”
- By June 1981, the Archbishop had reached a conclusion on the New Mass and said:
“…that the evil in the New Mass is truly intrinsic, in the text … and not only something purely extrinsic, [in the abuses], this is certain. Precisely by this general effect which diminishes the proclamation of our faith, this diminution is present everywhere, in the words and in the actions. They wanted to be ecumenical to such a point, to bring themselves closer to the Protestants in order to pray with them, that in the end they no longer affirm the Faith. And that is very grave. This diminution is excessively grave for our faith, how can it be otherwise? … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.” (pp. 224 in Dr. David Allen White’s, The Horn of the Unicorn).
- Archbishop’s conferences on the New Mass on June 23/24/25, 1981:
- “The liturgical reform consisted ultimately in taking a Protestant text, while affirming that one does not deny the truths the Protestants deny and, by virtue of the negation of these truths, they made this Novus Ordo…. the modernist liturgists who entered the Church found nothing better than to take the Protestant text and say: We do not deny the truths that the Protestants deny ... We do not deny the truths, but we take the same text, because this text has no formal heretical text! These texts were made by virtue of the negation of these truths, but they do not explicitly deny them, so they then say: We are not doing something heretical by taking these texts, but us, we do not deny the truths that the Protestants deny! ... I do not see how one can say: This [liturgical] reform is only evil in a purely accidental way, in a purely external or extrinsic way. In my opinion, the protestant reform, this Mass of Taizé is certainly evil because it no longer affirms truths … it is a poisoned mass. A poisoned mass, because when one no longer affirms the truly Catholic truths of the Mass, as the Protestants wanted, little by little faith in these truths also disappears. This, I would say, is so obvious, so obvious in all the consequences...”
“…we cannot, in three conferences, say everything on internal characteristics, on the similarities with Protestant texts in an ecumenical spirit, and thus of the danger which the [New] Mass entails for the Faith because of this diminution of the affirmation of the faith, a diminution of the affirmation of the dogmas which are essential to the Mass.… it [the New Mass] is not formally heretical, but indirectly it favors heresy because it puts you in a climate that no longer affirms the fundamental truths of the Mass , which no longer sufficiently affirms the fundamental truths of the Holy Mass.”
“… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any asceticism, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go."
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefevre - On the Combat for Christ the King |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-19-2020, 10:00 AM - Forum: Archbishop Lefebvre [by topic]
- No Replies
|
|
Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre: On the Combat for Christ the King
- "This century of apostasy, without doubt in a different way from the centuries of faith, belongs to Jesus Christ. On the one hand, the apostasy of the great number manifests the heroic fidelity of the small number; it was like this at the time of the prophet Elias in Israel, when God preserved only seven thousand men, who did not bend the knee before Baal [3 Kings 19:18]. Let us therefore not bend the knee before the 'cult of man' [expression of Paul VI], 'established in the sanctuary and sitting as if it were God' [2 Thess. 2:4]. Let us remain Catholics, adorers of the only true God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with His Father and the Holy Ghost!" (Archbishop Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. Kansas City: Angelus Press 1988, p. xvii)
- "What then is the true direction of history? Is there even a direction to history? History is all ordered to a person, who is the center of history and who is Our Lord Jesus Christ, because as St. Paul reveals it:
'In Him all things have been established in heaven and on earth, things visible and invisible, the thrones, the dominions, the principalities, the powers, all has been created by Him and in Him, and He Himself is before all, and all things have in Him their consistency. He is he head of the body which is the Church, He who is the principle... in order that in all things He hold the first place. For God willed that all the fullness abide in Him; He has willed to reconcile through Him all things with Himself, those which are on earth and those which are in the heavens, by making peace by the blood of His cross.' [Col. 1:17-21]
"Jesus Christ is therefore the pole of History. History has only one sole law: 'He must reign; ' if He reigns, true progress and prosperity will also reign, which are goods more spiritual than material! If He does not reign, it is decadence, decay, slavery in all its forms, the reign of the Evil One. This is what Holy Scripture promises besides: '[i]The nation and the kingdom that will not serve Thee shall perish, those nations will be entirely destroyed.[/i]' [Isaias 60:12] {Italics in the original} (Archbishop Lefebvre, [i]They Have Uncrowned Him. [/i]Kansas City: Angelus Press 1988, p. 139)
- “The point of opposition and the reason why there is no possibility of an Agreement [with Modernist Rome] is this; the question is not so much about the Mass, because the Mass is just one consequence of them wanting to get closer to Protestantism, and so they changed the worship, sacraments, catechism, etc. The real fundamental opposition is against the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ! … 'Oportet Illum Regnare!' … St. Paul tells us 'Our Lord came to reign, He must reign!' They [the Modernists] say: 'NO!' We say: 'YES!' with all its consequences!” (Abp. Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 70, 1993)
- “When someone asks if we know when there will be an accord with Rome, my answer is simple: WHEN ROME RE-CROWNS OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. We cannot be in accord with those who uncrown Our Lord! The day WHEN THEY RECOGNIZE ONCE AGAIN OUR LORD AS KING OF ALL PEOPLES AND NATIONS, it will not be us with whom they have rejoined but the Catholic Church, in which we dwell!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1988, Fideliter, No. 68 p. 16)
- “All those Conciliar Fathers who gave their vote to Dignitatis Humanae and proclaimed Religious Liberty with Paul VI, did they realize that they had in fact uncrowned Our Lord Jesus Christ by tearing away the crown of His Social Royalty? Did they grasp that they had very concretely dethroned Our Lord Jesus Christ from the throne of His Divinity? Did they understand that, making themselves the echo of the apostate nations, they were making those abominable blasphemies rise up towards His throne: We do not want Him to rule over us; We have no king but Caesar?” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2003, pp. 211-212)
- “There will be possibly other manifestations of putting the brakes on by the Vatican; and it is very, very dangerous for us to "rally" ourselves now. No rallying, no rallying to the liberals; no rallying to the ecclesiastics who are governing in the Church now and who are liberals; there is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us on the Mass of St. Pius V - certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually... They must give us back everything. They must give up their liberalism, they must come back to the real truth of the Church, to the faith of the Church, to the basic principles of the Church, of this total dependence of society, of families, of individuals on Our Lord Jesus Christ! At that moment when they give us the Mass of all times, very well, then, we are completely in agreement. Then there will be a perfect understanding, we will be able to be recognized, and we will have no more scruples. But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas.” (Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre to the priests of the District of France. Dec. 13, 1984)
- “If ever there were a willingness from Rome to resume discussions, this time, I will be the one to set down the conditions. As Cardinal Oddi said, “Archbishop Lefebvre is in a strong position.” That is why I will demand that the discussions concern doctrinal points. They have to stop with their Ecumenism, they have to bring back the true meaning of the Mass, restore the true definition of the Church, bring back the Catholic meaning of Collegiality, and so on. I expect from them a Catholic, and not a liberal, definition of Religious Liberty. They must accept the encyclical Quas Primas on Christ the King, and the Syllabus (Pius IX). They must accept all this, because this is from now on the condition determining all new discussions between us and them.” (Interview for Controverses, 1989)
- Fideliter: But there are traditionalists who have made an agreement with Rome without conceding anything.
Archbishop Lefebvre: "That is false. They have waived their opportunity to oppose Rome. They must remain silent because of the favors that have been granted. Then they start to slip ever so slowly until they end up admitting the errors of Vatican II. It is a very dangerous situation. Such concessions [by] Rome aim only to get the break with the SSPX traditionalists and submit to Rome." (Interview with Fideliter Magazine No. 79, January 1991, shortly before his death in March 1991)
- “… supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put in conditions. I shall not accept being in the position I was put in during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo X III, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with the popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti- Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of the these popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless. Thus, the positions will be clear.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview with Fideliter Magazine, Nov.-Dec. 1988)
- “We want to remain united to Jesus Christ, as the Vatican has dethroned the Lord. We want to remain faithful to our Lord King, Prince and Ruler of the world. We cannot change anything in this line of conduct.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Flavigny, conference, Dec. 1988)
- "We must build again the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ in this Christian world which is disappearing. You shall tell me: "But, Monseigneur, this is the fight of David against Goliath!" Yes, indeed, I know. But in his fight against Goliath, David won the victory! How did he win the victory? By a little pebble which he took from the torrent. What is this little stone which we have? Jesus Christ! Our Lord Jesus Christ! We shall say with our ancestors from Vendée:
"We have no other honor than the honor of Jesus Christ. We have no other fear in the world than to offend Jesus Christ!" They went to their death to defend their God singing this! We also, let us sing with courage, wholeheartedly: "We have no other love than Our Lord Jesus Christ, no other fear than to offend Him!" (Archbishop Lefebvre, 60th Ordination Anniversary Sermon, 1989)
- "Do not be surprised if we do not come to an understanding with Rome. This is not possible while Rome will not return to faith in the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ ... We collided on a point of the Catholic Faith." (Sierre Conference on November 27, 1988; Fideliter No 89)
- “We want to remain united to Jesus Christ, as the Vatican has dethroned the Lord. We want to remain faithful to our Lord King, Prince and Ruler of the world. We cannot change anything in this line of conduct.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Flavigny, conference, Dec. 1988)
- "It had to take all the frenzy of the enemies of Jesus Christ to bring them to the point of tearing away His crown, when, in application of the Council of 1962, the innovators suppressed or truncated these three strophes of the hymn from the Vespers of Christ the King:
The wicked mob screams out,
"We don't want Christ as King,"
While we, with shouts of joy, hail
Thee as the world's supreme King.
May the rulers of the world
Publicly honor and extol Thee;
May the teachers and judges reverence Thee.
May the laws express Thy order and the arts reflect Thy beauty.
May kings find renown
In their submission and dedication to Thee.
Bring under Thy gentle rule
Our country and our homes.
-(Archbishop Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. Kansas City: Angelus Press 1988, pp. 96-97)
- "At the risk of repeating myself, I come back to the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that dogma of the Catholic faith, which no one can put into doubt without being a heretic: yes, exactly: a heretic!" [Italics in the original] (Archbishop Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. Kansas City: Angelus Press 1988, p. 99)
- "So it is essential for us to have the conviction of this truth of faith: everything, including civil society, has been devised to serve, directly or indirectly, the redeeming plan of Our Lord Jesus Christ." (Archbishop Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him. Kansas City: Angelus Press 1988, p. 101)
- 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. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon of Pentecost Sunday 1975)
- 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 honour 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. (Ibid.)
- 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. (Ibid.)
- We must refuse to compromise with those who deny the divinity of Our Lord, or with any false ecumenism. We must fight against atheism and laicism in order to help Our Lord to reign over families and over society. We must protect the worship of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacraments instituted by Our Lord, practicing them according to the rites honored by twenty centuries of tradition.Thus we will properly honor Our Lord, and thus be assured of receiving His grace. ... It is because the novelties which have invaded the Church since the Council diminish the adoration and the honor due to Our Lord, and implicitly throw doubt upon His divinity, that we refuse them. These novelties do not come from the Holy Ghost, nor from His Church, but from those who are imbued with the spirit of Modernism, and with all the errors which convey this spirit, condemned with so much courage and energy by St. Pius X. This holy Pope said to the bishops of France with regard to the Sillon movement: “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but the men of tradition.”(Letter to Friends and Benefactors, April 1980)
- His reign must be established on earth as it is in heaven. It is He himself who said so in the prayer that he taught us, the Our Father: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”. And this must be the object of our prayers, the intention of our sufferings, and the purpose of our life. We must have no rest until Our Lord’s reign is established. A Catholic whose heart is not animated by this profound desire is not a Catholic. He is not one of the faithful of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It suffices to re-read these lines “Now at last in these times He has spoke to us, with a Son to speak for Him; a Son whom He has appointed to inherit all things, just as it was through Him that He created this world of time” (Heb, 1:2). (Archbishop Lefebvre, The Mass of All Time, Chapter 5: Angelus Press 2007, as quoted from here.)
- Our Lord Jesus Christ is King now. All power has been given to Him in heaven and on earth. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” says Our Lord. If, then, Our Lord’s will must be done on earth , it means that His law, the Decalogue, must be applied on earth as it is in heaven. We must profess this even if churchmen want no more of it. This what is dividing the Church at present . As for us, we want Our Lord’s honour and the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which must be applied universally. We will fight for this, and we will do our utmost to crown Jesus Christ King. Because we speak of the social reign of Our Lord, we are accused of engaging in politics, then we want to do so, because we want Our Lord Jesus Christ to rule over us. We do not want to be governed by men who are not subject to Our Lord. If only all our rulers understood that they must be subject to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the King of Kings, the Lord of lords! He is the King. He could have been the King on earth and continue to govern us. But He will be one day, when He descends upon the clouds in the heavens. Everyone will have to render and account to this King and Judge. (Ibid.)
- Meanwhile, today, we want authorities, leaders, who know that they will render an account to God for the exercise of their power and their government. For we love to be subject to persons who do not believe themselves to be the authors of all power. Even if they have been elected by the people, the people do not have power; the people are not God. The people can designate the one who will exercise authority, but it does not give the authority; authority comes from God: “there is no power but from God,” says St Paul (Rom.13:1). This is the greatness of authority. This is the true foundation of the power of authority, whether civil or paternal. Paternal authority comes from God. Children know that when they are subject to their parents, they are at the same time subject to God. How beautiful this is; how well God has made things! But how men destroy them! (Ibid.)
- We do not want to be subject uniquely to men who will do with us what they will. We would not be allowed to think except as these men think. We would not be allowed to act except as these men want us to act. No, we want to be subject to God, yes, we are willing to be subject. That is what we think and what we want. We want to belong to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our King. (Ibid.)
Quotes from Other Clergy on the Combat for the Reign of Christ the King
- "The heresy of our time is the rejection of the social reign of Jesus Christ. From all sides the cry of the Gospel parable resounds: "Nolumus hunc regnare super nos.–We will not have this man to reign over us." Not only are laws no longer made in His name or in conformity with His Gospel, they are made against Him. He is the enemy, and war is declared against Him from every side in the domains of doctrine and action..... (Buatier, Sacrifice in Catholic Dogma [French], p. 114)
- Meanwhile, He exercises over all nations the royal power, which he received, as Man, on the Day of his Ascension. He redeemed us all by his Blood; we are therefore his people, and he is our King. He is, and he calls himself, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. (Apocalypse 19:16) The kings of the earth reign not either by their own prowess, or by the boasted social compact; they lawfully reign by Christ alone. Peoples and nations are not their own masters; they belong to Christ and are his subjects. His law requires no sanction from man; it is above all human laws, and should be their guide and controller. Why have the nations raged, and the people devised vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord and against his Christ. They said: Let us break their bonds asunder, and let us cast away their yoke from us. (Psalm 2:1-3) How vain all these efforts! for, as the Apostle says, he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet, (1 Corinthians 15:25) that is, until his second coming, when the pride of man and Satan’s power shall both be at an end.
"Thus, then, the Son of Man, crowned at his Ascension, must reign over the world to the end of time. But, it will be objected: “How can he be said to reign in these our times, when Kings and Emperors and Presidents acknowledge that their authority comes from the people; and when the people themselves, carried away with the ideas of self-government and liberty and independence, have lost all idea of authority?” And yet, he reigns; he reigns in his justice, since men refused to be guided by his clemency. They expunged his law from their statutes; they gave the rights of citizenship to error and blasphemy: then did he deliver them up, both people and rulers, to their own follies and lies. Authority and power are become ephemeral: and as they scorn to receive the consecration of the Church, the hand that holds them to-day, may be empty tomorrow. Then anarchy, then a new ruler, and then a fresh revolution. This will be the future, as it is the present, history of Nations, until they once more acknowledge Jesus as their King, and resume the constitution of the ages of faith: “It is Christ that conquers! it is Christ that reigns! it is Christ that commands! May Christ preserve his people from all evil!” - Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Sunday within the Octave of the Ascension
- Were the Church’s plight a hundred times worse, a hundred times more cruel, it is still the Lord who is forever Master and King. It is to Him that all power has been given; it is before Him that every knee must bow in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, including those in this kind of hell, for the moment painless, which is the modernist sect. Its harmfulness cannot extend beyond the strict limits set by the Lord, and the Lord only grants it a certain power to obscure, to falsify, and to scandalize in thousands of ways, only for the good of the elect and to augment the gracious splendor of His Church. We ought not to be fearful, but rather persevere with confidence in the Church of always, the everlasting Church, the Church of all time. (Fr. Roger Calmel, Apologia, Itinéraires, No. 151, March 1971, pp. 104-111.)
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: 220px-Illustration_for_Papal_Infallibili...singer.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Illustration_for_Papal_Infallibility_page_131_Christ_in_His_Church_by_Lucas_Caspar_Businger.jpg/220px-Illustration_for_Papal_Infallibility_page_131_Christ_in_His_Church_by_Lucas_Caspar_Businger.jpg)
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonlaw.info%2Fz_popesign2.jpg&f=1]](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonlaw.info%2Fz_popesign2.jpg&f=1)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mostholyfamilymonas...eb.jpg&f=1]](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mostholyfamilymonastery.com%2FJPII%2Fassisi_oneb.jpg&f=1)
![[Image: ff7c64d1.jpg]](https://duckduckgo.com/i/ff7c64d1.jpg)
