Synod on the Amazon

Synod on the Amazon

Commentary on the Instrumentum Laboris
by Professor Matteo d’Amico
a document published in Le Sel de la terre 110, autumn 2019
* Presentation by Le Sel de la terre

The preparation of the synod on the Amazon has provoked many reactions in the Church. Several conservative cardinals and bishops criticized the working document (Instrumentum Laboris) to the point of publicly demanding its suppression.

Professor Matteo D’Amico took the trouble to methodically analyze this text in the Courrier de Rome 1. We reproduce here the main passages from his introduction and conclusion.

* Analysis of Professor Matteo d’Amico (it’s only an extract)

[…]

The text of the Instrumentum Laboris […] is divided into three sections :

— the first part entitled “The voice of the Amazon”,

— the second part entitled “Integral Ecology : The Cry of the Earth and of the Poor”,

— and the third part : “Prophetic Church in the Amazon : Challenges and Hopes.”

The Method of the Pope

Before starting a brief analysis of the text, let us first make an observation of the method: one will notice that the choice has been made to follow a plan starting from below, i.e., to arrive at the final document starting from the compilation of the questionnaire and a series of innumerable preparatory meetings.

The Pope has already accustomed us to this method in previous synods, such as the one on the family, and the one on the youth. We are faced with a kind of radical ecclesiastical democracy, with a continual appeal to the people and their solicitation to compile “notebooks of grievances” in which one must say what he expects of the Church, and what changes he expects of it. Basically, it is the method of all revolution, starting precisely from the French Revolution of 1789.

It is a dangerous and completely unnatural method for the Church, and unprecedented in all its history 2. The Catholic Church is essentially “magistra”: it possesses the truth in its entirety; it guards an immutable and clear doctrine that it has the duty to teach all peoples; it is not a mere human agency or institution that must conduct surveys on how to adapt a service to the requirements of its customers. Given the relationship between the Teaching Church (the Pope and the episcopate united to him and subordinate to him) and the Church Taught, it makes no sense to reverse the terms of the relationship and think that the Church Taught should teach the Teaching Church what to do or what to teach. We are facing an antichristic reversal of the right relationship that we should have with the Authority: we will see that this is the heart of the document, and in reality this is the heart of the very personal and heterodox interpretation that the Pontiff gives of the role and duties of the Church.

The Amazon

But it is useful to ask one last question: 34 million people live in the Amazon, of which more than 3 million are Indios, Indian natives (on a territory of 7.5 million square kilometers). It is a derisory number of inhabitants, equivalent to a little more than half of the inhabitants of Italy, but spread over a territory almost 22 times larger than that of Italy.

So why such an emphasis on the fate of Catholicism in this so particular but quantitatively insignificant region, regarding membership to the Catholic Church?

Are there not more urgent problems, such as the very profound de-Christianization of European Catholic States for centuries?

Are there not gigantic problems in the field of bioethics that would require extraordinary synods, such as the problems of abortion, euthanasia, homosexual unions?

Therefore, it does not seem rash to assume that the anxiety for 3 million Amerindians scattered in the vast Amazonian forest has another origin, and comes from ecological strategies put forward by the strong powers in the whole world, and that the Church must be the spokesperson and the sounding board, given its role of moral authority, certainly tamed and controlled but still influential on many, useful to give a varnish of spirituality to the global dictatorship that is slowly taking hold. In short, the Pope is used as a luxury Greta, for the use of dazed peoples who are slowly crushed. […]

Conclusion

It may be necessary, in conclusion, to summarize the structure of the document we have analyzed, highlighting its very serious flaws.

1. Firstly, all the laborious discourse that the Instrumentum Laboris develops is made without ever clarifying the situation of the Church in Amazon: it does not reconstruct its history, nor give data on the distribution, development, or the number of baptisms and marriages. Its style is thus totally abstract and, ultimately, not very serious. One does not understand, by reading this text, what it is talking about and what the situation of Catholicism in the Amazon is.

There is no rigorous and serious evaluation of the moral situation, e.g., respect for the conjugal bond, the frequency of the sacraments, etc. The situation could be good or very bad, but we do not know.

2. The confusion is increased by the fact that it is never clear whether it refers to the evangelization of the already baptized and converted Amerindians, or if it also speaks of the evangelization of Amerindians far from Gospel and who have never received the Good News. The “ancient” culture and beliefs of Amerindian “ancestors” are exalted to such an extent that it seems they are still pagans.

The worldview of the Amazonian Indians is ridiculously exalted as a vision of life of depth, beauty, harmony, and unmatched delicacy: an even superficial knowledge of these peoples suffices to show that it is a world far from being idyllic. The whole text is crossed and made absurd by this ambiguity.

3. The subject of the salvation of souls, eternal life, and the immortality of the soul is never mentioned in any part of the text. We are faced with a Christianity between the sentimental and the ideological, to be corrected to better favor harmony with nature. The text presents a faith completely emptied of its kernel of eschatological and soteriological force.

It never speaks of sin and, at the same time, there is not the slightest allusion to the Cross of Jesus-Christ and the economy of salvation based on the Cross. As sin is completely absent, so too is the theme of salvation absent, and not by chance: what salvation is needed if there is no sin? The very name of Jesus-Christ is mentioned only a very few times, and neither is this a coincidence.

Logically, there is no reference to the life of grace and the need to nourish it with the sacraments and prayer: all life of piety is dissolved in a nebula of continual exaltations of the original spirituality of the Indians of the Amazon, the new “good savages”.

There is […] almost no reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary. And this is very suspicious and raises a lot of doubts about the faith of those who wrote this document.

The document presents an idea of completely false and distorted inculturation, which ends up asking the Church to convert to Native American spirituality.

The aim is to alter the priesthood and the liturgy and to clear the way for ordained women in one way or another (even if one does not yet dare to say openly for what purpose exactly).

The doctrinal and scriptural references are minimal, and we are only faced with a flood of references to the texts of Francis, whose jargon is used shamelessly, repeating like parrots his typical expressions (and especially a “Church that goes forth”).

4. The whole text is frankly modernist in all its aspects, and especially in its way of pleading the cause of the most frantic “dogmatic mobilism”: where doctrine and morality must not be rigid or oppressive, but flexible and able to adapt to the concrete reality and needs of the Amazonian Indians.

The « Instrumentum Laboris » that we have commentated is not a Catholic document, but a breeding ground of heresies. It is a scandalous text, and it is the duty of every Catholic, but especially of every bishop, to publicly condemn it and demand that it be withdrawn, by publicly denouncing its falseness and its pitfalls.

Its application and use during the Synod on the Amazon can only bring about the ruin of the Church in the Amazon, first of all, and worldwide when its application will be expanded.

Translation by A. A.

1 — Le Courrier de Rome, no. 623 (July-August 2019). The issues of the Courrier de Rome can be found at www.courrierderome.org.

2 — It must be added that this alleged democracy is actually a manipulation—as in all Masonic regimes. The puppeteers who claim to listen to “the people” have taken all the necessary steps to hear exactly what they want. Augustin Cochin dismantled these manipulative techniques in the unfolding of the French Revolution, and Fr. Calmel repeatedly stressed that they had entered the Church with the the conciliar revolution. (Ed.)

Conciliar Bishops in Schools of Tradition

Conciliar Bishops in Schools of Tradition

Excerpts from Le Sel de la Terre 109 (Summer 2019)


Two recent events seem to mark a new stage in the process of reconciliation between the Conciliar Church and the Society of Saint Pius X.

The first event is an official visit by Monsignor Egan, Bishop of Portsmouth, to the SSPX School of Saint Michael in England.

Bishop Egan was invited by the principal to visit the school on March 8, 2019. During the visit, he led the prayer of the Rosary for the children in the chapel. The Oblate Sisters of the school refused to participate in this prayer.

After Bishop Egan’s visit, the principal told the children that Bishop Portsmouth was a man of good will, and that he was not bad.

It is possible that, as a private person, this bishop is “a good man,” but he is part of the system which is called the Conciliar Church.

For example, he paid a visit to the Southampton Mosque on June 5, 2017 to join the Friday prayers. Hère are some excerpts from his speech:

So on behalf of all Catholic Christians in this region, I offer you today our sincerest greetings and prayers for a Happy Ramadan. Ramadan Mubarak! This morning in Rome, our Pope, Pope Francis, has just sent a special message to all our Muslim friends across the world, to assure you of our prayers during this time of fasting, prayer and charity. […] Both Muslims and Catholics believe the Earth is holy; it belongs to God. It’s His work and so we must treat it with respect. So let us pray that the ecological crisis humanity is facing will call everyone in the world to a profound interior conversion, and to a renewed care for the Earth, our common home. […] Great Britain is a highly secular society. Yet you and I, Muslims and Christians, we are people of religion, faith and spirituality. We believe in God, and we believe that every human being is called to know Him, serve Him and love Him, to worship Him and to respect Him, and to find in Him ultimate happiness. It’s our task to witness to this in society, so that other people, those who say they have no religion, those who say they’re not sure, those who are lost or on the margins, can find their way home to Him. […] Please pray for me, and for the Catholic community here in Southampton and across our whole diocese 1.

It is clear that this bishop is spreading the modernism of Vatican II and that he is not unobjectionable.

Also, this visit provoked, among other things, the resignation of the superior of the Oblates, Sister Mary-Elizabeth.

The second event is the arrival of Bishop Vitus Huonder, former bishop of the Diocese of Chur, to a school of the SSPX in Switzerland to retire there.

Vitus Huonder was born on April 21, 1942 in Trun, in the canton of Graubünden. He studied at the Abbey of Einsiedeln, at the Pontifical Athenaeum of Saint Anselm in Rome, and finally at the University of Freiburg again in Switzerland where he obtained his university degree and in 1973 his doctorate in theology.

He was ordained a priest on September 25, 1971 (thus in the new rite) by Bishop Johannes Vonderach and consecrated bishop of Chur (this diocese includes the cantons of Graubünden and Zurich) on September 8, 2007 by Bishop Amédée Grab. Hence arises the question of the validity of his ordination and consecration. We know that Archbishop Lefebvre did not hesitate to conditionally ordain those of the new rite.

As to the bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI, the only known example of a bishop who joined Tradition is Bishop Lazo 2. This return to Tradition took place after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, but the SSPX has prudently kept away from ensuring him about episcopal functions.

Until the first of January of 2011, Monsignor Huonder was President of the European Community of Labor of the Christian Churches in Switzerland, where he gave the position to “anglican pastor” Adèle Kelham, until then Vice-President of the CTEC (Council of Christian Churches in Switzerland) 3.

Bishop Huonder was also a delegate of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference in the Jewish-Roman Catholic Dialogue Commission (JRGK for Jüdisch/Römisch-katholische Gesprächskommission der Schwei in German).

Under his chairmanship, this Commission designed and prepared the first Dies Judaïcus (Day of Judaism). It took place in Switzerland on March 20, 2011, and then was extended to other countries. We read in the message of Bishop Huonder:

On the second Sunday of Lent, March 20, 2011, the Swiss Episcopal Conference establishes the Dies Judaicus, the Day for the Jewish People. […]

This day has a double purpose. If the first objective of the Dies Judaicus is to return to the past, considering the people of the twelve tribes and the origin of the Christian faith, the effective reality of solidarity with the Jewish people reminds us of the permanent and ever present responsibility of the Church towards the Jewish people.

The terrible aggressions against this people during the Second World War led the Church to renew this responsibility and to make these declarations that we can read in the conciliar document Nostra Aetate. […]

In view of the reality that anti-Semitism has spread again in recent years, the Church once again feels the need to ask for solidarity in our country with the Jewish people. […]

I would like to highlight here the words of Saint Paul, who refers to our Jewish brothers and sisters: “because the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11,29).4 If the gifts and the call are irrevocable from God, that can only mean one thing: that the God and Father of all men pursues his plan of salvation for Israel. God is following His plan of salvation even today with the chosen people. He does not let his people fall. He also leads them in our days, because he seeks the salvation of all men: “[…] He wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2, 4).

From there, we want to pray that this irrevocable grace and call granted to Israel bear fruit even today, that they favor justice and mutual respect, and also contribute to unity and peace between all peoples 5.

In 2015, Bishop Huonder participated in discussions with the authorities of the Society of St. Pius X.

We publish here an interview of Bishop Huonder published in the Tagespost 6, and an excerpt from the letter of Monsignor Huonder to his diocesan alumni where he explains that “the intention of Pope Francis” in this process is “to integrate” [the Society of Saint Pius X].

Monsignor Huonder Interview of April 11, 2019

An interview with Bishop Huonder with Oliver Maksan was published in the Tagespost of April 11, 2019. We extract the passages which concern his coming to a school of the Society of Saint-Pius X.

The Tagespost:

Monsignor, you will spend your retirement in an institution of the Society of Saint Pius X. Did you have to obtain permission from the Holy Father to settle in a school of the Society?

Bishop Vitus Huonder:

No, because that is said in a letter to the Society from the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller. And the Prefect speaks with authority and with the approval of the Pope. But I have informed the Holy Father.

The Tagespost:

You are supposed to be the link between the Society and Rome. How did you get to this role?

Bishop Vitus Huonder:

For a long time I have been involved in the process of dialogue between Rome and the Society. Since the Headquarters of the SSPX are based in Menzingen, Switzerland, it was thought that a Swiss bishop should be involved. That’s why the Ecclesia Dei Commission, in charge of dialogue with the Society, asked me. This led to constant contact with the representatives of the Society here in Switzerland. I sent the reports to Rome. Now I will continue carrying out this mission. My main concern is the unity of the Church. The division in the Church must be overcome. We must not forget: The Society of Saint Pius X has many followers.

The Tagespost:

Your position is informal. It does not have concrete negotiating powers, but you try to be a bridge by being with them.

Bishop Vitus Huonder:

Yes, my role is mainly informal. But that also has its effects. For example, in the Year of Mercy, when the priests of the Society received permission from the Pope to give absolution. I was involved. I myself proposed to Pope Francis that he also had mercy on the Society and gave them powers. A year later I saw him again and he said he would accept my proposal. This encouraged me to continue on the path of unity with the Society.

The Tagespost:

Now this path has been followed for years without any agreement being reached. There seemed to be an approach under the direction of the former Superior General, Bishop Fellay. Under the new Superior Pagliarani, one has the impression that there is again an ice age, which is no longer about practical questions of integration in the Church, but about difficult doctrinal questions.

Bishop Vitus Huonder:

This may seem like that to the outside world. But there were also doctrinal concerns in the Society under the direction of Bishop Fellay. Maybe now they are getting a little more precise again. I do not know if a new era of ice is coming. But, above all, we have to work on this so that a good solution is reached.

The Tagespost:

How is that? What would the Society have to do now, what would Rome have to do to reach an agreement?

Bishop Vitus Huonder:

In the first place, it would be necessary to recognize the commitment of both parties, even if they have not yet reached a theological agreement. The Society should positively underline the seriousness of the Apostolic See. The Apostolic See, in turn, must appreciate the efforts of the Society and take its concerns more seriously.

In the Society one should not have the impression that they are welcomed in order to encircle them in some way. Then it would be easier to solve the theological problems that really exist.

The Tagespost:

Should the Society accept the Council in its entirety? Or can there also be forms of gradual recognition, as do Council documents which, by their weight, are not all on the same level?

Bishop Vitus Huonder:

Without a doubt, we should base ourselves on this principle. Not all the documents of the Council have the same value. Above all, the documents of the Second Vatican Council must be considered again, with more force, as a development of the previous period. On the part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it would be necessary to link more strongly with the pre-conciliar Magisterium in order to facilitate the recognition of the Council to the Society. It is about better demonstrating the continuity of doctrine.

Farewell letter from Bishop Vitus Huonder to his former diocesans

On the 20th of May, 2019, Bishop Vitus Huonder wrote to his former diocesans in order to explain the reasons for his exit.

[…] Ich selbst nehme nun, wie bereits bekannt, meinen Wohnsitz im Wohntrakt des Priesterhauses im Institut Sancta Maria in Wangs/SG. Dieses Institut gehört zur Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. Im Sinne von Papst Franziskus werde ich mich bemühen, dort zur Einheit der Kirche beizutragen, indem ich nicht ausgrenzen, sondern unterscheiden, begleiten und integrieren helfen möchte.

I myself, as is already known, have chosen to move to the building of the priests of the Sancta Maria Institute, in Wangs (St. Gallen), belonging to the Society of Saint Pius X. In the intention of Pope Francis, I will endeavor to contribute to the unity of the Church wishing to help, not to marginalize, but to discern, accompany and integrate 7. […]

Translation by J.F.

Addendum:

Sunday August 4, and Thursday August 15 (for the Feast of the Assumption of Our Lady) Bp Huonder celebrated a solemn High Mass (with Deacon and Subdeacon) and preached in Oberriet (German Switzerland), an important priory of the SSPX (350 faithful).

1 — See: http://www.portsmouthdiocese.org.uk/enews/mosque-visit.php

2 — See his beautiful profession of faith in Le Sel de la terre 26, p. 162. He said among other things: “I am not of the Rome of the Masons. Pope Leo XIII condemned Freemasonry in his encyclical Humanum Genus in 1884. Additionally, I am not of the Rome of the modernists. Pope Saint Pius X condemned modernism in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, in 1907. I do not serve Rome controlled by Freemasons who are the agents of Lucifer, the prince of demons.” Is Bishop Huonder ready to make such a declaration?

3 — https://www.cath.ch/newsf/l-une-des-rares-femmes-a-remplir-une-telle-fonction-au-plan-mondial-elle-remplace-mgr-vitus-huonder/

4 — See on this subject: “Against the diversion of Romans 11, 29,” in Le Sel de la terre 58, Fall 2006, p. 10-16.

5 — http://www.bischoefe.ch/dokumente/botschaften/message-pour-le-dies-judaicus-20-mars-2011.

6Die Tagespost is a newspaper appearing three times a week (Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday}. Formerly known as Deutsche Tagespost, its subtitle is Catholic Journal on politics, society, and culture. It is published in Würzburg.

7It is difficult not to see in this sentence an allusion to the deplorable chapter VII of the exhortation Amoris lætitia (March 19, 2016), which exhorts towards “a pastoral discernment filled with merciful love, which is ever ready to understand, forgive, accompany, hope, and above all to integrate.”

The Question of a Heretical Pope

The Question of a Heretical Pope

  Editorial of Le Sel de la terre 109 – Summer 2019

THIS QUESTION is posed more and more in view of the scandals given by the present Pope. A recent example is provided by the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Common Coexistence“, signed in Abu Dhabi on February 4, 2019, by Pope Francis and the “Great Imam” of Al-Azhar, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, in which we find the following sentence:

« The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings 1 »

As much as we can attribute the diversity between men and women to the “wise divine Will“, we cannot ascribe it to the diversity of religions whose only cause is the sin of men.

In the editorial of Le Sel de la terre 102, we indicated two initiatives leading to the question of the heresy of the pope:

— On June 29, 2016, forty-five theologians presented a critical study of the exhortation Amoris lætitia to the Dean of the Sacred College, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, where nineteen propositions of the Roman document were censored 2.

— On August 11, 2017, a twenty-five-page letter entitled Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis (Filial correction concerning the spread of heresies), dated July 16 and signed by forty clerics and academics, was handed over to the Pope 3.

Other facts have been added to this dossier:

— On March 30 and 31, 2017, a symposium was held at Sceaux (a suburb of Paris) entitled “The Deposition of the Pope: Theological Sources – Canonical Models – Constitutional Issues 4“. About fifteen academics, including ten professors, two doctors and one associate, dealt with the subject 5.

— On March 21 Bishop Schneider published a conference on the “heretical Pope“, where he defends the opinion that in no case does a Pope lose his office because of heresy 6.

— Shortly thereafter, on April 21, about twenty Catholic theologians and academics published an Open Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church [later designated as the Letter of the Twenty Theologians] asking the bishops to publicly warn Pope Francis of his heretical teachings. If he does not correct himself, they said, the announcement of his heresy by the bishops of the Church will then become a juridical fact, resulting in the pope automatically losing his office 7.

Thus, in view of the aggrevation of the crisis in the Church, a large number of Catholic figures realize that the problem comes from Rome. Although the theology of the present pope is not very different from that of his predecessors, the fact that he derives its moral consequences has shocked the conservative Catholics of the conciliar Church. Whence the accusations of heresy are multiplying.

Let us make two remarks about this:

1. These accusations are partly based on the teaching of the Council and the conciliar Popes. The authors of the latest Open Letter, for example, quote Vatican II and John Paul II in favor of their accusation of heresy against Pope Francis. Therefore, the perpetrators of these accusations have not yet grasped the origin of the evil that the Church suffers: even if they triumph in their enterprise – an unlikely hypothesis – we would be far from the return to a normal situation in the Church. This return cannot forgo condemning the errors of the Council.

2. Moreover, the accusers of the pope are divided on the consequences of their accusations. Does a pope accused and convinced of heresy lose his office?

— Yes, says the Letter of the Twenty Theologians.

— No, replies Bishop Schneider: “The theory – of the deposition of pope or the ipso facto loss of his office for heresy – is only a theological opinion [which is] in practice inapplicable. If applied in practice, it would create a situation similar to that of the Great Schism, which the Church has already disastrously experienced at the end of 14th and at the beginning of 15th century. Therefore we must bear with the situation by protecting ourselves as best we can; it is “the temporal cross of a heretical pope“.

We will simply remark here that the Letter of the Twenty Theologians is in accordance with the teaching of the great majority of theologians, while Bishop Schneider has difficulty in finding authorities on which to rely: the only theologian whom he quotes, Mgr. Zinelli, does not say that Pope can in any case lose his jurisdiction, but simply that if God allows such an evil, he will not lack the means of providing for the situation without jeopardizing the true doctrine of the full and supreme power of the Roman Pontiff 8. Clearly, the theologians cited by the Letter of the Twenty Theologians do not question this true doctrine.

This initiative of the 20 theologians has been criticized for being imprudent. We will readily admit that it is unlikely to lead to the deposition of the Pope. But it seems to us at least to have a twofold merit, on the one hand of recalling the traditional doctrine of the theologians on the question of a heretical pope, a little known doctrine, and, on the other hand, to indicate the immense danger to the Church of a Pope who spreads heresy: the current crisis in the Church has no other cause than the situation in Rome.

Once again, it is clear that the best solution is the one advocated by Msgr. Lefebvre in the last years of his life, when he understood that the seriousness of the situation in Rome obliged him :

to do episcopal consecrations without the consent of the Pope ;

and to wait for the Roman authorities to profess again the truly Catholic faith before placing himself and the Society under their immediate jurisdiction.




1https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/travels/2019/outside/documents/papa-francesco_20190204_documento-fratellanza-umana.html

2 See: fsspx.news/en/content/23941

3 A site has been specially created: www.correctiofilialis.org where this text can be found in various languages.

4 — Organized jointly by the University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, the University of Auvergne, and the University Paris-Sud – Paris-Saclay as well as the laboratory Law & Religious Societies, the Michel de l’Hospital Center and the Institute of Juridical and Philosophical Sciences of the Sorbonne. The proceedings of this symposium should be published soon, which will enable us to report more precisely on them.

5— We are awaiting the publication of the Acts to report on it.

6 — Article published on March 21, 2019, by fr.news, available on Gloria.tv.

7www.lifesitenews.com/news/prominent-clergy-scholars-accuse-pope-francis-of-heresy-in-open-letter Among the authors of this Letter, we notice Professor Paolo Pasqualucci (several of whose texts Le Sel de la terre has published) and two Dominicans, Fathers Thomas Crean and Aidan Nichols. As of May 21, 70 new people had signed the Letter.

8 —MANSI52, col. 1109.

Continuing the Battle of Saint Pius X

Continuing the Battle of Saint Pius X

Sermon given at the Dominican Monastery of La Haye-aux-Bonshommes Avrillé (France)

My Dear Brethren,

Today, the Church makes us celebrate the feast of Saint Pius X.

Let us remember the exceptional destiny of a small child from the countryside, who became priest, pastor, canon at Treviso, Bishop at Mantua, Cardinal, Patriarch of Venice, then Pope; a Pope whose “pontificate shone like in the Golden Ages of Church according to the expression of Pope Pius XII 1.

Divine Providence placed a saint on the seat of Peter, at the dawn of a century that would see, on the occasion of two world wars, the installation of communism, and then globalism into this world; and where the Church, infiltrated by her enemies, would know the gravest crisis of her history.

It is thus valuable to recall the teachings of this saint, to guide us in the present times. It is not for nothing that Msgr. Lefebvre wanted to make him the celestial patron of his work of restoring the priesthood, and of the battle that we lead today for the Church.

By nature, no one sweeter, more amiable than he, no one more a friend of peace, no one more paternal. […] [But] in front of the unavoidable attacks against God and the Church, he knew how to rise up like a giant in all his majesty, […] making the powers of the earth tremble and retreat, reassuring the hesitant and galvanizing the timid 2.

Restoring all things in Christ

He set the tone in his first encyclical:

Who can fail to see that society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and deep-rooted malady which, developing every day and eating into its inmost being, is dragging it to destruction? You understand, Venerable Brethren, what this disease is – apostasy from God.

And as might be expected we find extinguished among the majority of men all respect for the Eternal God, and no regard paid in the manifestations of public and private life to the Supreme Will – nay, every effort and every artifice is used to destroy utterly the memory and the knowledge of God 3.

A century later, how relevant this is! He continues:

When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days.

To combat the evil at its root, Saint Pius X sees only one solution: to restore all things in Christ. It will become his motto and essential agenda of his pontificate.

We proclaim that We have no other program in the Supreme Pontificate but that “of restoring all things in Christ” (Ephes. i., 10), so that “Christ may be all and in all” (Coloss. 3, 2). […]

We shall never, however much we exert ourselves, succeed in calling men back to the majesty and empire of God, except by means of Jesus Christ. “No one,” the Apostle admonishes us, “can lay other foundation than that which has been laid, which is Jesus Christ” (I. Cor 3, 2) 4.

This is why Pius X will vigorously condemn the separation of Church and State in France and will forcefully defend the liberty of the Church in face of the plundering French government 5.

Obviously, more than a century later, the evil is so deep and the entire world is so much in the grips of Freemasonry that any purely human means cannot reverse the course of things, it is necessary to be realist.

But let us not be discouraged! The pope continues:

The victory will ever be with God […] We believe and expect with unshakable faith. But this does not prevent us also, according to the measure given to each, from exerting ourselves to hasten the work of God – and not merely by praying assiduously […] but, more important still, by affirming both by word and deed and in the light of day, God’s supreme dominion over man and all things, so that His right to command and His authority may be fully realized and respected 6.

Battling Modernism

But what do we see today, after the latest Council?

The popes travel the world preaching the rights of man; since the Council, the Vatican has demanded that the last remaining Catholic States not mention in their constitutions that the Catholic religion is the State religion and to give the same rights to all the religions. In no speech is it understood that Our Lord is the only Savior of men and societies. Such a silence, if one thinks about it, is hardly believable.

Msgr. Lefebvre could write:

This is our opposition [to Rome today], and this is what cannot be understood. Our Lord came to reign. They say no, and we say yes with all the popes [before the Council] 7.

How did we get there?

Well! The good God rose up a saint at the beginning of the 20th century to enlighten and warn us in advance. This is the great encyclical of Pius X on the doctrines of the modernists: Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 8 September 1907.

Saint Pius X had the lucidity to see, and the courage to say, that the evil is not only in civil society, but that it is also in the Church, which is much worse:

The partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. […] Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church 8.

And Saint Pius X analyzed the entire modernist system.

It is not possible to explain the details of the whole encyclical here 9.

What is necessary to understand is that modernism completely destroys the faith.

Faith, as you know, is a gift from God received at baptism, which makes us hold as true all that Our Lord has revealed to us, and which he teaches us through His Church, when she speaks infallibly. This is what we recite in the act of faith:

My God, I firmly believe all the truths that you have revealed and that you teach us by your Church, because you cannot be deceived nor deceive us.

What is it for the modernists? What is faith for them? Saint Pius X says that for the modernists :

Human reason is […] incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognising His existence, even by means of visible things. (§6)

Faith […] consists [only, for them] in a sentiment which originates from a need of the divine (§7)

The divine reality [existence of God], for the Modernists […] [is found] In the experience of the individual. (§14)

What is to prevent such experiences from being met within every religion? […] And with what right will Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? With what right can they claim true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true. (§14)

This is today’s ecumenism. And it is what Masonry seeks for extending its global government, precursor of the antichrist. One cannot find anything more opposed to the motto of St. Pius X: « To restore all things in Christ! »

Of course the Catholic life is not something purely intellectual. A certain “experience” of God is found in it. Catholic life is a life of friendship with Our Lord, through the virtue of charity, the action of the Holy Ghost, and His seven gifts. All this makes our faith a living faith.

But when religious experience is not guided by the faith, if it is entirely reduced to sentiment, to individual conscience, the door is open to all deviations and heresies:

[Modernism is] the synthesis of all heresies (§39).

[It leads to] the annihilation of all religion, – atheism (§39).

Modernism was clearly condemned by Saint Pius X. The pope even took strict measures to remove the modernists from positions of responsibility.

But they refused to submit, continued to work underground, and three years later the pope will find:

They have not ceased to attract followers, either, by forming a clandestine group; by these means, they inject in the very veins of the Christian Republic the virus of their doctrine, by editing books and publishing articles in anonymity or with pseudonyms 10.

And they held the power at the Second Vatican Council.

Continuing the fight of Saint Pius X

Well! It is necessary to continue the fight of Saint Pius X, which is simply the fight of twenty centuries of Church; it is the only combat that has the assurance of victory, as the holy pope reminds us.

Studying and disseminating Catholic doctrine

It is first necessary to save the faith, which is disappearing today.

Saint Pius X has constantly insisted on the necessity of disseminating Catholic doctrine, encouraging the study of St. Thomas Aquinas; adding to the Catechism of the Council of Trent a simplified catechism in the form of questions and answers, which is extremely deep and luminous, now called the Catechism of Saint Pius X.

He asked the bishops to found schools of religion for the youth in the cities, and he asked the priests to institute congregations of Christian doctrine in the parishes. He insisted that, in their sermons, priests should make the Council of Trent known 11.

Pius XII calls Saint Pius X “the pope of Catholic doctrine12.

In this spirit, it is necessary that the faithful today implement a program of readings for the year, fixing each week a time for religious reading, alone or as a family; or organize a doctrinal group to study doctrine with other faithful, under the guidance of a priest.

Living the Mass

Then we must focus our life on the Mass.

Regnavit a ligno, Deus : God reigns by the cross.

At Calvary, Our Lord has definitively conquered sin, the devil, and the world. Holy Mass, renewing the Sacrifice of Calvary, extends the victory and reign of Our Lord over our countries. Christendom was built around the altar of the Sacrifice.

Saint Pius X therefore wanted to establish his fight for Christ the King on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Holy Eucharist.

Pius XII calls Saint Pius X “the Pope of the Holy Eucharist in our time13:

— he restored the dignity of worship, “primary and indispensable source of the true Catholic spirit14;

— he reestablished frequent and daily communion in the Church, “much desired by Jesus Christ and by the Catholic Church15;

— he allowed little children to receive holy communion early, as soon as they can “distinguish the Eucharistic Bread from ordinary bread16.

The modernists destroyed the mass: it is the ecumenical mass of Paul VI. Divine Providence raised up Archbishop Lefebvre to give us Mass of all ages. Let us live the holy Mass, now that it has been returned to us. Let us read about the Mass; if we are living not far from a traditional chapel, let us try to go to Mass on weekdays, at least sometimes; let us prepare the evening before Sundays, by reading the texts of the Sunday Mass, and make a good thanksgiving after Holy Communion, at least spiritually if we cannot attend Mass (we will have the same spiritual fruit).

Making Our Lord reign amongst us

Finally, Saint Pius X exhorts us to work for the restoration of all things in Christ by word and deed, study the doctrine of Christ the King, make it known around us, and constitute strongholds of resistance where Our Lord may reign: our soul, our families, our traditional parish communities, and wherever we can influence.

**

As a conclusion, let make ours the prayer of the Church in the collect of the Mass for the feast of saint Pius X:

O God Who, for the defense of the Catholic faith and the restoration of all things in Christ, filled St. Pius, the Supreme Pontiff, with heavenly wisdom and apostolic fearlessness, mercifully grant that, by following his teachings and examples, we may receive Your eternal rewards. Amen.

1 — Pius XII, Allocution for the beatification of Saint Pius X , 3 June 1951 (AAS 43 pp. 471).

2 — Pius XII , Ibid. p. 472

  1. 3 — Saint Pius X, encyclical E Supremi Apostolatus, 4 October 1903, §3 and §4.

  1. 4— Saint Pius X, Ibid. §4 and §8.

  1. 5— One can refer to his encyclical Vehementer nos, 11 February 1906.

  1. 6— Saint Pius X, encyclical E Supremi Apostolatus, §7.

  1. 7— Mgr Lefebvre, L’Église infiltrée par le modernisme, Éditions Fideliter, 1993, p. 70.

  1. 8— Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 8 September 1907, §2 and §3.

  1. 9Le Sel de la terre 93 (été 2015) published a complete analysis of this encyclical by Msgr Richard Williamson (pp. 71-87). One can also read the Catechism on Modernism by Fr. Jean-Baptiste Lemius, O.M.I., published in 1907 with a letter of commendation by Cardinal Merry del Val. The French edition was happily reprinted by Éditions Delacroix in 2003.

10— Saint Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, 1 September 1910 [English translation]

11 — Encyclical Acerbo Nimis, 15 april 1905, on the teaching of catholic doctrine.

12 — Pius XII, Allocution for the beatification of saint Pius X, ibid.

13 — Pius XII, Allocution for the beatification of saint Pius X, ibid.

14 — Saint Pius X, Motu Proprio Tra Le Sollecitudini on Sacred Music, 22 november 1903.

15 — Saint Pius X, Decree De Quotidiana SS. Eucharistiae sumptione, 20 december 1905.

16 — Saint Pius X, Decree Quam Singulari, 8 august 1910.

To Say That A Canonical Recognition Is Not Feasible Before Rome Returns To Tradition, Is This A Schismatic Attitude?

To Say That A Canonical Recognition

Is Not Feasible Before Rome Returns To Tradition,

Is This A Schismatic Attitude?

By Maubert

published in Le Sel de la Terre 107

Reasons for an Affirmative Response

  • First Reason

Refusing the jurisdiction that is offered to us amounts to denying all jurisdiction that comes from the pope. However, to deny the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, is the characteristic of schismatics.

  • Second Reason

To deny communion with the pope and most of the faithful, during more and more years, has given us a schismatic attitude: we do not feel the need to integrate the “visible perimeter” of the Church, so we have lost the Sensus Ecclesiae.

  • Third Reason

To stand apart from Church authorities when they ask us to abandon faith and the liturgy of time immemorial, is understandable and excuses the schism; but since today we are accepted “just as we are,” our conduct would become unjustified and the schism would be formal.

  • Fourth Reason

The place of Tradition must be in the “official perimeter” of the Church so that it remains visible.

Opinions to the Contrary

To continue to profess the faith of all time and to celebrate with traditional worship, away from the conciliar Church has never been considered by Archbishop Lefebvre as a schism: “we truly represent the Catholic Church,” 1 he said, and that was even after the consecrations of 1988, just after John Paul II excommunicated him.

Why should we be now schismatic if we hold the same attitude towards modernist Rome?

In-Depth Response

  • What is schism?

Schism, says Cardinal Billot, opposes the unity of communion. […] It is incurred in two ways :

— First, if one directly refuses obedience to the supreme pontiff, not accepting what he commands, not precisely from the point of view of what is commanded (for that would amount to mere disobedience), but from the point of view of the authority that commands, that is, refusing to recognize the pope as head and superior.

— Secondly, if one separates directly from the communion of the Catholic faithful, for example by behaving like a separate group.2

At first sight, traditionalists seem to be schismatic in two ways:

— the absence of an effective link of dependence suggests that they do not recognize the authority of the pope;

— and they seem to form a sort of “little church” and are called “lefebvrists” or “integrists” while refusing to mingle with other faithful.

  • The bond of faith is first

However, Pope Leo XIII, in the encyclical Satis Cognitum, speaking on the unity of the Church, says this:

« Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite men to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful. »

A few years later, in his magisterial encyclical condemning the false ecumenism, Mortalium Animos, Pius XI will resume the same idea:

« Since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. »

It emerges from these Pontifical teachings that there is in the Church a more fundamental unity than the unity of communion: it is the unity of faith. And for the unity of communion to be true, it is absolutely necessary for it to have the unity of faith. Hence, it is clear that the first schismatics are the heretics: “Heresy,“ says Cardinal Billot, “is a schism, for it directly opposes the unity of faith.” One can oppose the unity of communion without opposing the unity of faith, but one can not oppose the unity of faith without opposing the unity of communion, since the first is the foundation of the second.

  • It is those who deviate from the faith that commit schism

When we consider the situation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, we see that people who occupy positions of authority are imbued with liberalism and modernism. They have imposed reforms that destroy the Church because they oppose traditional faith and worship. Thus, they broke with the Tradition of many centuries, that is to say, definitively, they broke with the unity of faith; and the unity of communion they are trying to achieve is only a pseudo-unity, because it has lost its true foundation. The modernist hierarchy, so long as it is modernist, is heretical: it opposes the unity of faith by preaching its errors and, consequently, to the unity of communion. In other words, it is the conciliar Church that is schismatic because it seeks to achieve a unity that is no longer the Catholic unity.

Archbishop Lefebvre said clearly:

« The conciliar Church is practically schismatic. [….] It is a virtually excommunicated church, because it is a modernist church. The pope wants to create unity without that of faith. It’s a communion. A communion to whom? to what? in what? It is no longer unity. This can only be done in the unity of faith. » 3

  • And the pope?

As Cardinal Journet explains, in The Church of the Incarnate Word, 4 the pope himself can sin against ecclesiastical communion by breaking the unity of direction, which would happen if he did not fulfill his duty. and refused to the Church the orientation it is entitled to expect from him, in the name of one greater than him, Christ, its founder and invisible leader. And it is unfortunately the painful situation in which we have found since the Council. If Archbishop Lefebvre was to stay away from the modernist hierarchy and the conciliar Church, it was by fidelity to Tradition, refusing to commit schism and break with the unity of faith, as it has always been done in the Church. « The Church, Father Calmel O.P. said, is not the mystical body of the pope, but of Christ ». 5 If, therefore, the pope fails in his office to the point of promoting heresy and schism, then it is better to obey Christ. and remain faithful to the Church of all time, even if it means enduring the wrath of the authorities in power. Archbishop Lefebvre preferred to stay away from this hierarchy and this false communion:

« To leave, therefore, from the official Church? To a certain extent, yes, of course. If the bishops are in heresy, it is necessary to leave the midst of the bishops if one does not wish to lose one’s soul. If we get away from these people, it’s absolutely the same as with people who have AIDS. We do not want to catch it. But they have spiritual AIDS, these contagious diseases. If we want to keep health, we must not go with them. » 6

  • Origin of our attitude

In practice, the Catholic must not desire and can not be in communion with a hierarchy that favors modernism, liberalism, and ecumenism which are condemned by the popes and direct the faithful in ways foreign to Tradition. It would be better to endure the persecutions, criticisms, epithets of “schismatics” and “excommunicated,” than to collaborate in the undertakings of this hierarchy and the loss of souls.

1Fideliter 70, p. 6.

2 — Cardinal BILLOT, L’Eglise, volume II, Publications of the Courrier de Rome, 2010, p. 69-70.

3Fideliter 70, p. 8.

4 — Cardinal JOURNET, L’Eglise du Verbe Incarné, Desclée de Brouwer, Fribourg, 1962, vol. II, p. 839 sq.

5 — Père Roger-Thomas CALMEL O.P., « De l’Église et du pape», in Itinéraires 173, May 1973, p. 28.

6 — Conference in Ecône, 9 September 1988, cited in Fideliter 66, p. 28.

Letter from the Dominicans of Avrillé No. 31: May 2019

Letter from the Dominicans of Avrillé

No. 31: May 2019

St Vincent Ferrer

2019: Year of St. Vincent Ferrer

St. Vincent Ferrer: 1350-1419

The apostolate of St. Vincent Ferrer was as international as the Dominican Order itself. Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Switzerland (some even say England, but proof is lacking)… received his visit, and all of Europe felt the power of his message.

He traveled on foot – or, at the end of his life, riding on a donkey – accompanied by a group of confessors and a flock of penitents who would follow for a time the preacher that converted them. Arriving in town, he would kneel down on the ground, not wanting to penetrate any further into the city without imploring for it the divine blessing. After which, the mission commenced.

He himself would rise each morning at 2 o’clock, in order to recite the Breviary and say his private prayers. A few hours later, the mission would start with a Solemn High Mass, celebrated by St. Vincent, with deacon, sub-deacon, and a highly-trained schola — with musical instruments! The saint placed great importance on the beauty of the liturgy, which for him was the first way to preach.

The Mass was generally celebrated outdoors, as no church could contain the crowds of faithful. Next came the sermon, which easily lasted three hours (sometimes longer), the blessing of the sick (and the resulting miracles), and the reconciliation of enemies.

The Angel of the Last Judgment

In the eyes of the faithful, Saint Vincent Ferrer was above all — as he said himself — the “Angel of the Last Judgment”, he who came to cry out to the world: “Fear God, and give Him glory, for the hour of His judgment is come” (Apoc. 14:7). Born in 1350, two years after the start of the terrible bubonic plague that decimated Europe, he preached to a Christendom ravaged by the Hundred Years War, natural catastrophes (such as the earthquakes shaking even St. John Lateran and St. Peter’s), and the Great Western Schism. If that wasn’t the end of the world, it was at least a striking prefiguration. Throughout Church history, just as there have regularly been precursors of the Antichrist, God has sent precursors of the intrepid preachers who will be his direct adversaries at the end of the world.

A hundred years ago, the review La Vie spirituelle underlined the significance of St. Vincent’s mission, for his epoch and ours:

God gave him the mission to speak to all the people of Europe, to repeat during 30 years, without tiring, the importance of salvation, the blinding light of the final judgment, the eternity of Hell. […] The whole of St. Vincent’s preaching consists in boldly confronting his listeners with the most frightening and the most certain of all realities: Hell is the punishment for sin. Unless you convert, you will all perish.

The Angel of the Judgment is thus [always] a “Saint for today”.

The Problem of Evil

If God exists, where does evil come from? This is a common objection, but which actually turns against atheism and leads to religion.

And yet, evil exists, doesn’t it? Evil (for example, deafness, blindness…) does not have its own proper existence: it’s an absence, a lack, a disorder, that doesn’t exist all by itself, but only in something else that it damages. Evil is a privation of being — a privation of the normal order.

What does that prove? A privation does not have a proper cause. The shadow of a tree (privation of light) is not positively produced by the tree (which only limits the action of the Sun), and much less by the Sun itself! In a way, one could say that evil is to God what shadows are to the Sun.

But if God is all-powerful, what could limit His action? God, being all-powerful, is free to manifest His goodness as He wishes. Instead of an egalitarian universe (with millions of identical beings), His wisdom preferred a diversified creation, reflecting His goodness in a multiple fashion (in varying degrees). In this hierarchy, certain beings cast shadows on others: animals eat other animals, which eat plants, which assimilate minerals, etc. Each creature, with its limits, contributes to the general order of things.

Doesn’t the presence of evil inside humanity itself (wars, crimes, injustice…) argue against the existence of God? False notes in a concert do not in any way rule out the existence of the symphony, nor the existence of a composer. It’s actually the opposite which is true: it would be impossible to discern the false notes if the melody and harmony of the whole did not exist. Similarly, the presence of evil in the world does not in any way raise doubts as to the existence of God: to the contrary, we could not discern what is evil without having first recognized a general order of the universe.

Evil remains a scandal! Evil is a scandal for those who are more or less pantheistic (thinking that the universe itself is God), or who adore Mankind. The imperfections of our world prove first and foremost that the world is not God; it is not the Supreme Being, and so we must therefore search for something higher. Every man has a thirst for happiness which cannot be completely satisfied by things here below. This is just one more proof of the existence of God: true happiness is over and above this world!

But if God is good, couldn’t he eliminate all evil? Evil will always be a mystery for our limited human reason. We can understand that evil is permitted by God for a greater good, but it remains difficult to discern what this greater good actually is. The mystery of evil calls upon other mysteries which alone can shed light upon it: the mystery of eternal life (our life on earth is only a temporary trial, before our real life), the mystery of final judgment (one day, everyone must render an account of their actions), the mystery of original sin (man used his liberty to “thwart” God’s plan), and the mystery of Jesus Christ, who made reparation for sin in a manner even more beautiful than if sin had never existed (God’s goodness is revealed better by Jesus taking on human nature in order to make reparation and suffer in our place). To all those who suffer and are tempted to revolt, only Jesus (who suffered even more, but who leads us to happiness), provides the true answer.

Community Chronicle

January 31st: Mrs. Miriam CARROLL (Sr. Claire Gambacorta t.o.p.) passed away in Kansas, fortified by the sacraments of the Church and assisted by her fellow tertiaries. According to the constitutions of the Third Order and her personal wishes, she was buried wearing the Dominican habit.

Mirriam Carroll (coffin)

February 1st: At Montagnac-la-Crempse (Périgord), Fathers Marie-Dominique and Angelico represent the community at the funeral services for Mother Marie-Emmanuel, the first Prioress of the contemplative Dominican sisters of Avrillé.

February 9th: Brothers Michel-Marie and Augustin-Marie receive the tonsure during a Pontifical High Mass celebrated by Bishop Zendejas. Several seminarians receive the cassock, tonsure and minor orders on the same occasion.

February 10th: The Third Order Fraternity of “Saint Dominic and Saint Francis” (which gathered together all our tertiaries of Southeastern France) having become too big, Fathers Angelico and Marie-Laurent preside the erection of a new Fraternity for our tertiaries of Auvergne: the Fraternity “Saint Vincent Ferrer.” The fledgling Fraternity will be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on May 5th, feast of St. Pius V.

February 17th: Third Order meeting for Fathers Marie-Dominique and Hyacinthe-Marie at “Saint Joseph’s Domain” (Convent of the Sisters of Mary Coredemptrix, near Rennes, Brittany).

March 9th/10th: Weekend recollection for the faithful near Bordeaux, with Fathers Marie-Laurent and Hyacinthe-Marie.

March 17th: Annual pilgrimage in honor of St. Joseph for the families of St. Philomena School, with Fathers François-Marie and Angelico. Fathers Marie-Dominique and Hyacinthe-Marie are in Chartres for a conference, then to Paris for the Third Order.

March 30th/31st: For the 600th anniversary of St. Vincent Ferrer’s entry into Heaven, Father Louis-Marie leads a group of tertiaries on a pilgrimage to his tomb in Vannes (Brittany).

March 24th: Arrival of Bishop Thomas Aquinas, who will stay several weeks in France.

March 28th: Father Prior is in Rennes (Brittany), where Bishop Thomas Aquinas presides over the ceremony of the final vows of Sr. Marie-Liesse, and the temporary vows of Sister Marie-Joseph (Sisters of Mary Coredemptrix).

March 30th-April 6th: Annual pilgrimage to Rome for the graduating class of St. Thomas Aquinas Boys’ School, accompanied by Fr. Marie-Dominique.

lu1704oi4b_tmp_b9d191b615c7017

Death of St. Vincent at Vannes (Brittany)

News from our worksites

lu1704oi4b_tmp_4df76203746fcef

In order to have a spotless church in time for Holy Week and Easter, a 5-day cleaning operation, under the di­rection of our Br. An­dré-Joseph, was ac­complished in late Feb­ruary. The height of the vaulted ceiling and the fragility of the murals (dating from the 14th century) made it neces­sary to rent a crane for the delicate procedure.

church cleaning 2

The construction permit for the future Parish Hall was rejected due to a change in zoning laws… The architect is now revising the blue prints in conformity with the new requirements, and we’re hoping to get the project under way in 2020. We’re also counting on your prayers to remove all the administrative and financial obstacles!

Crisis in the Church

February 4th, 2019: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom.” (Declaration on Human Fraternity signed by Pope Francis in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.)

March 30th, 2019: Rabat, Morocco: the Pope visits the “Mohamed IV Institute for the Formation of Muslim Preachers,” thereby giving formal encouragement to spread a false religion fiercely opposed to Our Lord!

To send a donation:

YOU MAY USE PAYPAL (ON OUR WEBSITE), OR SEND TO:

In the U.S.:

Dominicans of Avrillé, Inc.
P.O. Box 23, Newman Lake, WA. 99025

In Canada:

Association of St. Dominic

C I B C, 201-21 Street East

Saskatoon (SK) S7K OB8 Canada

Please include a note, and specify:

acc. #40-91531

In the U.K.:

Association of St. Dominic

R B S Edinburgh, 17 Comiston Road, Edinburgh EH10 6AA

Please specify: acct. # 00105564

For more information :

Couvent de la Haye-aux-Bonshommes

49240 Avrillé, France

crucifixion-saint dominic

Sermon of His Excellency Bp. Gerardo Zendejas given in Avrillé (France) for the Consecration of the Holy Oils and Chrismal Mass of the Holy Thursday

Sermon of His Excellency Bp. Gerardo Zendejas

given in Avrillé (France)

for the Consecration of the Holy Oils

and Chrismal Mass of the Holy Thursday

April 18, 2019

Picture

Dear Rev. Prior, Priests, Brothers and Religious,

My Dear Brethren,

As Catholics, we believe that there are four marks in the Catholic Church: One, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic. Needless to say that Catholic Church has the power to produce saints. This is the mark of sanctity. Absolutely God sends his grace from above as source of holiness. For that purpose Our Lord Jesus Christ has instituted seven sacraments in order to be a common way of sanctification, prefigured under the Mosaic Law and accomplished under the Law of the Gospel by the true and unique Messiah – our Lord Jesus Christ

A sacrament is a visible sign instituted by Jesus Christ in order to give grace, which we need for the eternal salvation of our soul. Taking human nature into account, Our Lord linked an invisible grace, for example to be child of God by adoption, to visible a sign – like water – when is used for Baptism. In other words, man stands in need of perceptible outward signs so that can realize and communicate spiritual realities. In a way, sacraments are symbols, however they signify what they perform.

Catholic Tradition has transmitted that there are three essential elements in a sacrament: matter, form and intention. Certainly, there is an immemorial use of OIL in the administration of some sacraments. For instance, it is essential to use Holy Chrism (a mix between Olive Oil and Balsam) in the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Concerning the administration of sacraments in preserving their substance, Traditional teaching including the common teaching of the Church and theologians, have transmitted those matter, form and intention, and have religiously expressed them in prayers and gestures by the Roman Ritual or Eastern Liturgical Rites. Indeed, after SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL THESE RITES WERE MODIFIED. Why?

Here are some dates of modification:

1968 a new rite of priestly Ordination

1969 a New Mass

1969 a new rite of Baptism

1969 a new rite of Matrimony

1971 a new rite of Confirmation

1972 a new rite of Extreme Unction

1973 a new rite of Penance

1988 a new rite of exorcism, etc..

So, in 1970 there was installed a new matter for the holy Oils, not only enforcing a different kind of oil, but also granting the fact of blessed oils instead of consecrating them.

The new Rites – in general – do relativize the essential intention in administering Sacraments because undermine the truths of Catholic Faith. For instance, OLIVE OIL from Apostolic times was considered as the proper unique matter. The Ritual for the consecration of Holy Oils, which we are going to use in a few minutes, expresses during the preface that the olive oil was chosen among other trees for the signification of tree of peace and light – arbor pacis et lucis. It says that Noah had received some leaves of Olive tree, as signal of peace from God after the Deluge; also how Our Lord – praying in the Garden of Olives – willed to sanctify those olive trees in order to sanctify us when we offer ourselves to God, in particular when a person gives oneself to God in priestly or in religious life. In fact, for purpose of validity in administering the Sacrament of Confirmation the holy Chrism is essentially needed to be from olive oil mixed with balsam.

Otherwise, on December 3, 1970 the Congregation of Rites authorized the use of other vegetable oils in the administration of Sacraments, approved by Pope Paul VI. In addition, in canon 847 the new Canon Law (1983) reads: “In administering the sacraments in which holy oils must be used, the minister must use pressed olives OR OTHER PLANTS….. consecrated or BLESSED by a bishop.”

Nevertheless, the Congregation of Rites gave no reason to justify that something that has always been understood as INVALID (other kind of oil), later had suddenly considered to be VALID and enforceable. If Catholic Tradition has always refused to change the essential elements of the sacraments, it is because Jesus Christ has instituted them.

After Vatican II, very many priests had been erroneously indoctrinated through their preparatory years of formation, so that they could deliberately be weak in learning Tradition, and strong in Modernism. Their Novus Ordo modified ways in considering the sacraments, not only affect the priests’ believing but also the faithful’s beliefs in presiding community celebrations or interacting in social functions. Due to constant defects and excesses, the new Rites of sacraments are projecting a different way of believing.

That is the reason why Archbishop Lefebvre wisely RESISTED these innovations in order to preserve our Faith and the grace of God, so that the four marks of the Church could be preserved but in particular that one of Sanctity, for the Greater glory of God and the eternal salvation of many souls.

Let’s thank to Our Lord, during this ceremony, for the institution of the sacraments on Holy Thursday – the Holy Eucharist and Holy Orders because He also wanted to consecrate the ministers of the sacraments. That’s why He consecrated the first bishops in order to preach the Gospel throughout the world with its Traditions. We therefore should pray for the fidelity of Traditional Bishops, in spite that some of them want to play the betrayal role of Judas Iscariot.

In concluding, more than ever let’s thank to Notre Dame de Paris for having sent the French Prelate, Archbishop Lefebvre, to preserve our Catholic Episcopacy, and Catholic priesthood, in using the Traditional Rite of Sacraments, particularly that one of consecration of Holy Oils for their validity.

As the statue of Notre Dame remained safe after and in spite of last Monday burning fire, the Archbishop’s stands for Tradition shall remain safe in spite of the burning fire of Vatican II destructive innovations. Therefore, let’s once again thank to Notre Dame of Paris for remaining at the traditional main Altar in the Cathedral after last Monday burning fire, either way if it was provoked by accident or by incident, God knows. But what we really know is that in spite of such fire and smoke, Our Lady wanted to remain at the foot of her beloved Son’s cross, enhanced by Royal Crowns in Paris, as A TESTIMONY that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Mystical Body of Christ. The Catholic Church will not be destroyed, and Notre Dame of Paris Cathedral shall be restored. Absolutely, the Mother of God encourages us to keep the Deposit of the Faith transmitting the mystery of the Redemption, in spite of Vatican II diabolical confusion. The Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ is always prevailing because He is True God, True Man and True King!!!

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, AMEN

Can we Accept?

Can We Accept a Canonical Recognition Proposed by a Neo-Modernist Authority?

By Maubert

Published in Le Sel de la Terre 101

The answer is not self-evident. Indeed, for years Msgr. Lefebvre envisioned an accord as though it were possible; furthermore, he took steps in this direction, it being before 1988, let us not forget.

Before answering, it is first necessary to define the terms of the problem, because there is talk here and there of an “accord” or “canonical recognition“.

What is an “Accord“?

The etymology of this word indicates a harmony of hearts. The current sense of this word, in this context, is that of an “arrangement among those who are in agreement” (Petit Robert French dictionary). The same dictionary, defining the expression “in agreement,” says [“to be in agreement“]: “To have the same opinion, the same way of thinking, or the same intention (to work in the same direction, make a common cause, walk hand-in-hand as a single person, to be united).” In other words, an accord designates a community, be it in thought or action.

If one applies this to the relations between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X, as well as to the associated communities, the accord can be doctrinal or practical.

At first, an Accord can be doctrinal

After the Second Vatican Council, a doctrinal ditch was dug between the Catholic hierarchy and the faithful who remained attached to Tradition. Thus there is no longer accord but divergence on questions of faith. After fifty years, neo-Modernist Rome is forced to reestablish an accord and lead the faithful of Tradition toward the doctrine of Vatican II; there is accord when they adopt the new doctrines. Msgr. Lefebvre and his successors were forced to bring the Roman authorities back to the traditional doctrine; in other words, they sought a doctrinal accord in the truth, which supposes the conversion of neo-Modernist Rome.

Then an Accord can be practical

This is to say that it does not concern doctrine, because the two parties diverge, but action; one seeks an arrangement to live together, each remaining what it is. But action is governed by law. Thus, such an accord is sealed by a canonical structure conceded to the communities of Tradition. Is this modus vivendi possible without the latter changing doctrine? In fact, concretely, this has never existed, as the history of the successive accords since 1984 proves.

Finally, an Accord can be simultaneously doctrinal and practical

There are two cases to envision:

* either the neo-Modernist Roman authorities propose a canonical statute, requiring at the same time adherence to some doctrinal points taken from the Council;

* or these same authorities, having returned to Tradition, recognize the canonical statute that the SSPX and associated communities already have, after having denied its existence (because the suppression of the SSPX in 1975 means nothing, and the erection of associated communities draws its legitimacy from the state of necessity – supplied jurisdiction applies here in this case).

An accord supposes that the two parties “are in agreement“. If one works for a practical agreement, one seeks an arrangement, modifying the conditions as needed, until one reaches an agreement.

What is a Canonical Recognition?

The current sense of the word “recognition” (in the context which concerns us) is “the fact of admitting (something) after having denied or doubted it“.

More precisely, it is the “action of formally, juridically recognizing. […] Recognition of a government, by which a State recognizes the legality of a government arising from a revolution” (Petit Robert French dictionary).

Nature of a Canonical Recognition

A Canonical Recognition is the granting of a canonical structure by the ecclesiastical authority to an entity that does not have it. In reality, one speaks rather of an “approbation” or “canonical recognition” of an Institute. If one uses the term “recognition” here, it is because of the particular situation in which we find ourselves: the Pope recognizes the juridical existence of communities that already exist.

However, in the mind of the Roman authorities, these communities do not currently have any juridical existence. For example, the aforementioned authorities do not recognize the vows of these religious as public vows but they consider them private vows. On the occasion of various accords (at Le Barroux [Benedictine community of Dom Gerard], at Papa Stronsay [Redemptorist community of Fr Michael-Mary], it was necessary for the members of these communities to renew their vows in the hands of the local bishop or of a representative from the Holy See. Consequently, in the case of canonical recognition, it will be necessary to examine closely these circumstances. If the Holy See, either by words or actions, declares a work legal that until then it judged illegal, to accept this line is ipso facto, despite later rectifications, to admit that the aforesaid work was illegal. Implicitly, it denies the state of necessity that has legitimized our resistance to the self-destruction of the Church.

Consequences of a Canonical Recognition

The first consequence is that the recognized institute acquires a legal personality, thus a certain autonomy in its internal government.

The second consequence is that this Institute depends more closely on the local bishop, if it is a diocesan Institute, or on the Holy See if it is an Institute of pontifical right. In the latter case, the Institute is removed from the vigilance of the bishop in anything that regards its internal government. The reason for this vigilance (of the bishop or Rome) is that it is necessarily under the direction of the hierarchy of the Church that the institutes led their members to Christian perfection. Is this canonical dependence toward the neo-Modernist authorities compatible with the preservation of the faith and its public profession?

Canonical Recognition and the Apostolate

The local bishop is responsible for all the faithful in his territory. Consequently, the entire apostolate of the priests—including those of the members of the exempted institutes—is ruled by the bishop and is exercised under his dependence and vigilance.

This is why Msgr. Lefebvre, envisioning the regularization of the works of Tradition, examined which structures could allow for continuing the apostolate beside the faithful in a certain independence from the bishops. This supposes the Institutions fall directly under the jurisdiction of the Pope.

Let us especially examine the case of a personal prelature, which is still on the agenda of Rome and of the Society.

The Second Vatican Council inaugurated personal prelatures. They are “jurisdictional entities, erected by the Holy See as instruments within the framework of the pastoral hierarchy of the Church, for the realization of particular pastoral or missionary activities“. These pastoral tasks are addressed to particular groups of people. So things are done orderly, the prelatures should be made known to episcopal conferences, before their erection, to coordinate their work.

At the head of the prelature is a prelate who has jurisdiction over the faithful upon whom particular pastoral activities are exercised by the priests of the prelature. However, to be able to exercise its apostolate in a diocese, the prelature should have obtained the preliminary consent of the local Ordinary. The personal prelature is thus an auxiliary of the diocesan clergy. The faithful who benefit from its apostolate are thus submitted principally to the local Ordinary and, in addition, to the prelate of the personal prelature.

This concerns the prelatures envisaged by the 1983 code. To tell the truth, the structure foreseen by the SSPX and by its related communities will enjoy, it seems, an almost complete independence with respect to the bishops; in any case, this independence will be much greater than that of the Opus Dei. Nevertheless, it cannot be complete, because by divine right the diocesan bishop is the head of the territory confided to his care.

Also, the simple juridical recognition implies all this: by the recognition of the Institutes, there is a dependence on the Holy See, normally on the Congregation for Institutes of consecrated Life (although the Holy Father is free to associate them with another congregation); for the erection of personal prelature—if applicable—there is a dependence on the Congregation for Bishops; then, a certain harmony with the local Ordinaries is necessary. Finally, the prelature depends on the Roman Congregation for Bishops.

“Unilateral” Recognition?

This is an expression that is frequently heard recently. What does it mean? A recognition can be bilateral?

We limit ourselves to the case of a canonical recognition: the recognition is the act of who recognizes. Yet, who recognizes the traditional communities? The Holy See. It is not we who recognize the latter and who give it a canonical structure. Consequently, a canonical recognition is essentially unilateral. So, why the pleonasm?

On the one hand, this expression seems to mean that the act of the pope would be without “doctrinal compensation“. The proposed canonical structure would not be accompanied by a preliminary doctrinal declaration to sign. In this case, it would be better to speak of a “canonical recognition without a doctrinal compensation“. On the other hand, this expression gives the impression that the works of Tradition will be regularized despite them, that they will not be for nothing, and that they will not be able to refuse.

Msgr. Rifan 1 said in 2002: « The Pope has offered to recognize our bishop with the promise of a successor; it remains for us to get out of the irregular situation in which we find ourselves. We accept and, in conscience, we cannot refuse this offer. »

Now, this is evidently false; it is necessary to agree on a document, which necessarily implies an acceptance or a refusal on the part of the aforementioned works [of Tradition]. Thus, in 1988, the Monastery of the Holy Cross 2 made a declaration refusing the agreement established between the Holy See and Dom Gérard 3. « Our Monastery of Santa Cruz, it was said, was included in the terms of the agreement that we come here to refuse, without our having been consulted about it. At the time Msgr Lefebvre fully approved this conduct. »

This brings us to a third possible sense of the expression “unilateral recognition“: it suggests that there would not be a compensation on the practical level; everything would continue as before, without any change, if only we would be officially recognized. This masks an aspect of capital importance, which is the effective submission to Roman authorities, and the inevitable influence that these would exert on us. Indeed, law is never “unilateral“; it rules the relations between persons (physical or moral) in view of the common good, thus the relations between superiors and subjects. It is inconceivable to imagine a subject who only has rights and a superior who only has duties; this would be revolutionary. Thus, the subjects necessarily have duties toward their superiors. So, if the superiors grant something, even more so do the subjects concede their submission; the right is thus essentially bilateral. Whence the question it will be necessary to examine: Does not this dependence risk leading to a doctrinal agreement on the Council?

De Facto Recognition?

This expression indicates the act of a Pope who, seeing that the negotiations with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are stalemated, would pass over any doctrinal, canonical, or liturgical condition. It would be a recognition above all of the facts than by way of legal or canonical right. The Pope has already begun in this direction (notably in conceding the jurisdiction for confessions, then the recognition of the priestly ordinations, and now of the marriages).

We remark that what is called “de facto recognition” has some juridical consequences. Indeed, to declare that the confessions of the priests of the Society are valid amounts to saying that they are legal, conforming to the right, to the law. Although the Pope does not explicitly say: “I give jurisdiction to these priests,” it is a matter of delegated jurisdiction; in fact, it is he who set the duration of it (at first in restricting it to the limits of the year of mercy, then in deciding to continue it afterwards). What was done for confessions has now been done for other acts of the ministry of the priests of Tradition. It is a sort of “piecemeal” or “step-by-step canonical recognition“.

What the distinction between “de facto recognition” and “legal recognition” could indicate is the difference between the phase where some aspects of the ministry of the priests of the Society are recognized as legal, and the other phase where all the aspects of their ministry would be (which necessarily implies a juridical statute, because one cannot be associated with a Society without following its law). And it is only in this phase that the submission to the Roman authorities would become effective.

This distinction suggests that there could be a total recognition of the legitimacy of the Society without a dependence on the current Roman authorities, which is impossible. It is better to speak of an “ongoing canonical recognition” or an “ongoing canonical regularization” than of a “de facto recognition” as St. Thomas said, II-II q. 1 a. 3 : « Movements are specified by their terminus, and receive their name from it. For example, a casserole that heats on the stove warms, tending toward the state of heat in stages ». So here, according to the Roman authorities, the term is the canonical statute. The movement that leads there is the canonical regularization. Consequently, the movement where we find ourselves is an ongoing canonical regularization.

Canonical Recognition and Agreement

As it is now understood, the term “agreement” generally designates a practical agreement, with or without a doctrinal declaration (the current project includes one). The canonical recognition is included in the practical agreement.

The clarity of words

But why make all these clarifications of vocabulary? They are necessary if we want to be “children of the light“. In her language the Church supremely adheres to clarity of words. Firstly in the expression of dogmas; but this holds true in all the teaching of the Church, from encyclicals to the simple children’s catechism course.

On the contrary, the Revolution dreads clear expressions. Abbé Joseph Lémann 4 said:

“One cannot be careful enough, in France and elsewhere, of the manner in which evil men come to invade bit by bit all avenues of society. Their ability has been infernal. They have seized language before seizing your schools, oh Catholics, your hospitals, your courts of law, your institutions […]. The invasion began in words, in ideas; it is achieved in institutions. It was logical. A profound thinker made this reflection that one cannot meditate on enough: “As long as a people is invaded in its territory, it is only defeated; but if it allows an invasion of its own language, it is finished. The language of a people […] is the supreme bulwark of a people, its last sanctuary.” Behold why it is to render a service to the patriotic cause of the nations than of theirs to cry: Carry, before all, the battle into language, call things by their true name, and for that purpose use a naming that clarifies and disenchants the poor deceived populations.”

Alas! Modern Rome has abandoned this clarity. It would above all not be necessary to let it impose vague language on us.

This is thus the objective of these reflections: to establish clarity of language. It is necessary to call a spade a spade. If a canonical recognition undergoes negotiations where each side makes accommodations, it is necessary to call that an “agreement“. For example, the regularization of the priests of Campos 5 (Brazil) was an agreement. When signing, Abbé Rifan said: “This is not an agreement; it is a recognition.” He implied that Rome recognized the validity of Tradition, which was false. The faithful believed Abbé Rifan, and cried for victory. They have been deceived.

We would prefer to cast aside the expressions “unilateral recognition” and “de facto recognition” and simply speak of a “canonical recognition, with or without a doctrinal compensation“; things will thus be much clearer.

Translation by AA

(to be continued)

1 — Brazilian bishop consecrated by cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos, successor of Msgr Rangel consecrated by the bishops of the Society to succeed to Bp de Castro-Mayer (note of the Editor).

2 — Ruled bt Fr Thomas Aquinas, now Bp Thomas Aquinas, in Brazil (note of the Editor).

3 — Superior of the benedictine of the Monastery of Le Baroux in France (note of the Editor).

4 — Famous convert from Judaism in France in the 19th century, who converted with his brother. Both became priests, and worked for the conversion of the Jews to save them (note of the Editor).

5 — Former diocese of Bp de Castro-Mayer (note of the Editor).

Is it not a duty to seek official recognition from the Pope?

Is it not a duty to seek official recognition from the Pope?

By Maubert

published in Le Sel de la Terre 102

1. Reasons for a Positive Response

Yes, it seems that it is a duty to seek official recognition by the pope.

* First reason

Indeed, if the Roman authorities, and especially the pope himself, call us to join our efforts to re-christianize society, we cannot do anything but rejoice in it, while ensuring that we remain as we are.  Or, with good reason, the pope sees in the SSPX a force that can have a part in the new evangelization demanded from all corners.  He appreciates that we are moving towards the “existential peripheries,” that is to say, that we help souls wherever they are, which goes in the direction of his program.  Finally, he sees that everything falls apart, while we on the contrary represent a living force for the Church.  Do we have the right, therefore, to refuse a recognition and to keep for ourselves all these treasures?

* Second reason

Among the conservatives, we have sympathizers – even some cardinals – some of whom need our help.  This could counterbalance the influence of the progressives.

* Third reason

Any abnormal situation leads in itself to normalization. It is in the very nature of things.  We must go in this direction and look to restore us to a normal situation.

* Fourth reason

In the coming years, we will urgently need new bishops.  It is certainly possible to consecrate without a pontifical mandate, in case of emergency, but if it is possible to consecrate bishops with Rome, this permission must be sought.

* Fifth reason

It is not through ecumenism that the Pope comes to us, but as Catholics.  He tells to whoever wants to hear that we are Catholics.  Moreover, the discussions that we have with our Roman counterparts or with those mandated by the Holy See, are discussions between Catholics.  What’s more normal than being officially recognized as Catholics?

* Sixth reason

Our canonical recognition would cause a healthy disturbance within the Church: the good would be encouraged, the malicious would suffer a defeat.

* Seventh reason

Moreover, with reason, our enemies (the modernists and others) oppose it: this is a sign that it would be a good thing.

* Eighth reason

St. Pius X himself shows us the example.  Indeed, the anti-clerical forces, taking advantage of the disunity of their opponents, had seized power in Venice.  In the following elections, Cardinal Sarto resolved to change the situation. “He laid the foundation for an honorable alliance,” says his biographer (Fr Dal Gal), “between the members most representative of the Catholic party and those of a moderate party, an alliance contracted under the sign of the most ample trust.”  There was total victory.  Thus, the popes of the late 19th and early 20th century gave the example of appeasement with secular countries to reinvigorate an influence of the Church.  And on this road of pragmatism, with his back to isolation, one of the pioneers is St. Pius X, as famous for his reforms as for his attachment to principles.

Likewise in the crisis of the Church: after the Council, it was important to distance oneself, as Archbishop Lefebvre did, to show our disapproval of certain novelties.  Now the danger is isolationism.  It is necessary to reach a peace with the moderates, to reinvigorate in the Church the principles of Tradition, and that happens necessarily with a canonical solution.

* Ninth reason

Archbishop Lefebvre, moreover, has always sought a canonical solution for the SSPX.  He continued his efforts even after the consecrations, although, in his realism he had little hope of success.

* Tenth reason

Today, we are not the only ones to criticize the excesses.  At Rome itself, voices are heard.  This freedom that is left to them is the guarantee of the one left to us, after the canonical recognition.

2. Opinions on the other side

Against the preceding reasons, let us note what follows:

* On July 14, 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre said to Cardinal Ratzinger:

Eminence, see, even if you grant us a bishop, even if you give us a certain autonomy relative to the bishops, even if you grant us all of the liturgy of 1962, if you grant us to continue the seminaries and the Society, as we are doing now, we will not be able to not collaborate, it is impossible, impossible, because we work in two diametrically opposed directions: you, you are working on the dechristianization of society, of the human person and of the Church ; yet us, we work for their christianization. We can not get along.” (Le Sel de la Terre 31, p. 194).

* In December 1988, he said again:

When we are asked when there will be an agreement with Rome, my answer is simple: when Rome shall recognize our Lord Jesus Christ.  We cannot agree with those who dethrone Our Lord.  The day when they will recognize again Our Lord, King of all peoples and nations, it is not we who will have joined them, but the Catholic Church in which we remain.” (Fideliter 68, p.16).

* Finally, in his Spiritual Journey, which is like his testament, he writes:

As long as this Secretariat [for Promoting Christian Unity] will keep false ecumenism as their orientation, and as long as the Roman and ecclesiastical authorities approve of it, we can say that they will remain in an open and official rupture from all of the past of the Church.  It is therefore a strict duty for priests wanting to remain Catholic to separate from this conciliar Church, as long as it does not find the Tradition of the Magisterium and the Catholic faith.”

3. Answers to the objections

— To the first objection: the pope calls us to the new evangelization

The pope, being the authority, is the efficient cause for this society which is the Church.  If he calls us, we must carefully examine whichever final cause he intends to lead us to.  What is this “new evangelization”?  Does this term mean the same thing for him and for us?  Is Francis looking for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? (We have seen otherwise).  If it’s not the case, we cannot answer his call; that would be to endorse his program, falsely suggesting that we agree on the terms.  Now, as we have seen, since the Council, the men of the Church lead to an end quite opposed to that set in place by Our Lord.

As for the “existential peripheries”, he is not afraid to look into divorced remarriages, homosexuals, etc., with a complacent look on their moral disorders.  Is this what this term also means for us?

— To the second objection: with the conservatives, we could act as a counterbalance

More than ever, we must help these sympathizers.  But is canonical recognition the right way?  In fact, what they need to do is open their eyes to the errors of the Council.  At this time, they do not see its errors.  Indeed, according to them, the thing that we lack is canonical recognition: said another way, they have not understood that the problem is not with us, but with them.

Our real way of helping them is to provide them with all the materials that will enable them to understand the crisis we are experiencing, and to pray for the Holy Ghost to enlighten them. This is what some priests did about Bishop Lazo, bishop emeritus of San Fernando de la Union in the Philippines.  What a magnificent conversion they obtained!  It was not only signs of sympathy they got on part of the prelate, but also he became a confessor of the faith.  “Why did you become a traditionalist?” they asked him.  “Well, here [is why],” he answered, “it’s because I rejected the new Mass!” (Le Sel de la terre 21, p.163).  But it is not only the Mass; the fight for the faith is even more important.  In 1998, he sent to John Paul II a Declaration of Faith, in which he denounced conciliar errors.  “I am for Catholic Rome,” he said, “the Rome of Saints Peter and Paul. […] I am not for Rome controlled by freemasons who are the agents of Lucifer, the prince of demons.” (Le Sel de la terre 26, p.166; extended text on pp. 162-167).  And he himself became an apostle to other bishops, sending them documents.  “I have given this you as I think it is up to this level of ideas in which we must engage in this battle.” (Le Sel de la terre 21, p. 167, see his autobiography in issue 34, pp. 89-112)

— To the third objection: any abnormal situation leads to normalization

The expression is ambiguous.  It can mean that any abnormal situation must be made normal again.  For example, after the Eastern schism, the Church has made every effort, for centuries, to bring the dissidents back to the fold.

However, the obvious meaning seems to be that, ineluctably, things must move in the right direction.  Now, our poor human nature, delivered to itself, can only roll from abyss to abyss, if no one comes to help her.  To use the example of schismatics, despite the numerous efforts of the popes, very few of them have returned to the Church for a thousand years.

In addition, the expression used implies that we are in an abnormal situation.  What is actually abnormal is that the authorities spread modernism.  To make a comparison, if a father forces his children to steal, under the threat of grave punishment, they are bound to disobey him and resist him; certainly it is abnormal that children resist their father; but the first disorder is indeed that of the father; and if it becomes untenable and dangerous for their virtue, it is prudent for them to get away from him.  As this disorder remains, the children are forced to resist, or to stand aside.  It would be incomprehensible for the children to resume normal relations with their father, because they know that he is obstinate in his vice.

In our case, we keep our distance from modernist Rome for the reasons mentioned above, and for others we will see in the following articles.  As these reasons remain, we are obliged to stay in the situation we find ourselves in and to be qualified “abnormal” by the objector.

— To the fourth objection: the urgent need for new bishops

One must distinguish the two questions: the canonical solution and the consecration of a bishop.  Each is resolved by its own principles.  (Note that, in 1987-88, the occurrence of these two problems confused the matter.  All was clearer in 1991, for the consecration of Bishop Rangel, where only the question of the consecration was in play.)

For the first (the canonical solution), we will number the principles in the next issue.  As for the second (the consecration of a bishop), it is resolved by the principle of the state of necessity.  Let’s hear how Archbishop Lefebvre spoke about it shortly before his death.

In 1990, having learned that the health of Archbishop de Castro Mayer was declining, Archbishop Lefebvre sent him a letter proposing to him the consecration of a successor in the episcopate.  “Why consider such a succession,” he asked, “outside the usual canonical norms?”

1) “Because the priests and faithful have a strict right to have pastors who profess in their integrity the Catholic faith, essential for the salvation of their souls, and priests who are true Catholic pastors.

2) “Because the conciliar Church is now universally spreading errors contrary to the Catholic faith and, because of these mistakes, has corrupted the sources of grace that are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments. This false church is in ever deepening rupture with the Catholic Church.  The absolute necessity of continuing the Catholic episcopate to continue the Catholic Church results from these principles and facts. […].

That is my opinion; I think it’s based on the fundamental laws of ecclesiastical law and on Tradition.” (Fideliter 82, pp. 13-14).

It can be added that Archbishop Lefebvre had made contact with the Roman authorities for all the steps of the episcopal consecrations for the Society before 1988.  He had concluded that “recourse to Rome, always physically possible, is rendered morally impossible by the spirit which has penetrated the Holy Father: communion with false religions, the spirit of adultery which is [alive and] breathing in the Church; this spirit is not Catholic.  For twenty years, we have strived with patience and firmness to make the Roman authorities understand this need for a return to sound doctrine and tradition for the renewal of the Church, the salvation of souls and glory of God.  But they remain deaf to our pleas, and furthermore they ask us to recognize the legitimacy of the whole Council and the reforms which ruin the Church.” (Quoted in Mgr. Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre, a life, Clovis, Étampes, 2002, p. 570).

If, therefore, the need for episcopal consecrations is felt, it suffices to retake these principles and apply them: the faithful always have the right to true doctrine and the true sacraments; the conciliar Church is still in rupture – even more than in 1990 – with the Catholic Church; finally, the Holy See does not seem to have questioned the legitimacy of the Council and cannot stand being attacked on this question.  By this we can easily see “if it is possible to consecrate bishops with the permission from Rome.”  As for knowing when to consecrate bishops, this falls within the “royal prudence,” that of the leader.  It is up to him to apply the principles to the reality of the moment.

— To the fifth objection: it is not ecumenism

Truly, relations between the Holy See and those faithful to Tradition is not ecumenism.  Indeed, ecumenism is the search for a certain union between Christians (Catholics and non-Catholics) without conversions.  But here, both sides are Catholic, so it is not ecumenism.

However, the principle that is at the root of ecumenism is pluralism: indeed, in ecumenical relations, everyone respects the convictions of the other, accepting them as valid.

However, this is the same principle that the Holy See wants to impose for their relations between us.  Hence, it does not suffice to say that it is not through ecumenism that the pope comes to us – which is true – yet it should not be in a pluralist perspective, which is not the case.

— To the sixth objection: the healthy disorder which will lead to our recognition within the Church

Everything that is of traditional tendency gathers sympathizers and opponents (some more or less virulent).  For example, some show their discontent with the founding of the Good Shepherd Institute, saying that “these people should have stayed out“; others showed their support, seeing it as a step towards “reconciliation“.  In the same way, the Franciscans of the Immaculate were appreciated by many and hated by others.  Yet it does not suffice to say that Institute of the Good Shepherd was right and that the doctrinal position of the Franciscans is irreproachable.  It is not on the reaction of others that we must judge an act, but on its intimate nature.  We examine the moral nature of a canonical recognition with the neo-modernist authorities.  That’s enough to judge its merits.

— To the seventh objection: our enemies oppose this recognition

The reason we have just given suffices to answer the present objection.  Let us add simply that it is not enough that an effect be good to justify the act which produced it; in other words, the end does not justify the means.  It is not permitted to steal money to build a church.  Here, likewise, the good effect (besides being very limited) would proceed from a bad means: adding to conciliar pluralism.

— To the eighth objection: St. Pius X has given us the example of union with the liberals

Certainly, there was a meeting with the liberals to expel the Freemasons.  Yet, as Father Dal Gal says, let us observe, moreover, that in this alliance between Catholics and moderate liberals, it was not these who had drafted the program of common action to conduct in the election period and after the elections.  It was not the Catholics who had attenuated their principles to adhere to the moderates, but the moderates who had adhered to the program of the Catholics.  Now, in our case, it is the neo-modernists who intend for us impose their principles.

Let us note that in the case of the separation of the Church and the State, St. Pius X resisted the French government which wanted to impose the cultural associations, which would have led the Church of France to schism.  His firmness pushed back the sectarians.  It is therefore wrong to say that the pontificate of Saint Pius X is part of an inescapable logic of reconciliation and appeasement.  That is reading events in the light of the sense of history.

In addition, isolation is not an evil in itself: God had even prescribed it to the people of Israel.  If Archbishop Lefebvre distanced himself, it was to preserve his priests from modernist influences.  It is not clear why, by the mere fact that thirty years have passed, it is necessary to go through a canonical solution to reintroduce the principles of Tradition to Rome.

— To the ninth objection: Archbishop Lefebvre had always sought a canonical solution

Let us begin by pointing out that Archbishop Lefebvre had long sought a canonical solution.  But it is absolutely clear that after the consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre until his death no longer sought a canonical solution.

Yet it is not useless to say why Archbishop Lefebvre first sought a solution on the canonical level.  It is because he has long hoped and believed that the authorities were capable of sincerely desiring the good of Tradition. “I have hoped until the last minute”, he said, “that in Rome there would be a little loyalty.” ( Fideliter 79, p. 11).  This will to favor Tradition was undeniably the same as that of Bishop CharriÀre when he approved the SSPX.  But later, Archbishop Lefebvre had to realize that it was not at all that of the Roman authorities.  “They want to have us under their heels directly,” he said, “and to be able to impose on us precisely this anti-Tradition policy of which they are imbued. {…] I realized that Rome wanted to impose their ideas and ways of seeing. “( Fideliter 66, pp. 28-30).  “We quickly realized that we were dealing with people who are not honest. […]  We, we wanted recognition [the will to help Tradition], Rome wanted reconciliation (that each one make concessions) and we recognized our mistakes.” (Fideliter 70).

Cardinal Gagnon himself said to L’Avvenire of June 17, 1988:  “We have, on our side, always talked of reconciliation, Archbishop Lefebvre, on the other hand, of recognition.  The difference is not small.  Reconciliation presupposes that both parties make an effort, that past mistakes are reconciled.  Archbishop Lefebvre only hears that it is said that he has always been right, and that is impossible.”  (Quoted in La Tradition excommunique , a publication of the Courrier of Rome , Versailles, 1989, pp. 40-41).  “The desire of Rome of not helping Tradition”, said again Archbishop Lefebvre, “and of not trusting it, is evident.”  ( Fideliter 68, p. 9 – see pages 4 and 7).  Finally, he writes to John Paul II that “the moment of frank and effective collaboration had not yet arrived because the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same for the Holy See as it is for us “. ( Le Sel de la terre 25, p 153).

Also, for him, there is no question of entering the pluralist system: “For them, all this [Catholic doctrine] evolves and has evolved with Vatican II.  The latest term of evolution, that is from Vatican II.  That’s why we can not bond with Rome.”  ( Fideliter 66, 30).  “We should not be surprised that we cannot arrive to an understanding with Rome.  This will not be possible as long as Rome does not return to faith in the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, and as long as she gives the impression that all religions are good.”  ( L’Eglise infiltr»e par le modernisme [ The Church Infiltrated by Modernism ], p. 71).

— To the tenth objection: the freedom of conservative prelates is the guarantee of our freedom

As we have seen, none of the conservative prelates questions the Council and its principles.  Only if we accept, in one way or another, these principles, will Rome tolerate criticism on our part, which is obviously unacceptable.

Translation by J.F

.

Saint Paul VI ?

Saint Paul VI ?

By Dominicus

After the recognition of the the “heroic virtues” of Pope Paul VI by Benedict XVI on December 20, 2012, and the pretend beatification by Pope Francis on Sunday, October 19, 2014, his pretend canonization took place on Sunday, October 14, 2018.  A new false canonization, after that of popes John XXIII and John-Paul II.

To be beatified or canonized, a pope must have exercised heroic Christian virtues not only as a Christian, but also as pope.  But, far from having exercised exemplary virtues, Pope Paul VI is among those who have contributed the most, along with the Popes John XXIII and John Paul II, to the self-destruction of the Church.

Let us begin by recalling some facts regarding his pontificate, then we will give some documentation.

List of facts regarding Paul VI

1. The first list of facts is found in the book by Msgr. Lefebvre, Le coup de maître de Satan [The Masterstroke of Satan]1 :

A list of facts that, taken separately, can seem insignificant, but which, seen in the light of the new humanism, take on an astonishing meaning :

— Visit to the UN and support of this Masonic organization and enemy of all that is Catholic.  [October 4, 1965, with a humanistic speech ( “What you are proclaiming here are the basic rights and duties of man, his dignity, his liberty and above all his religious liberty.  We feel that you are spokesmen for what is loftiest in human wisdom.”) and pacifistic (  “never again war, never again war !” ) ]

— Visit to the worship hall of the UN, a true Masonic temple. [The same day Paul VI entered the « meditation room », a Masonic sanctuary in the center of which there is  “an altar for a faceless God”.]

— Renunciation of the tiara, sign of the power of the pontificate. [November 13, 1964, Paul VI placed the tiara on the altar, in full council before all the bishops of the entire world, giving it up definitively.]

— Refusal to condemn communism at the Council.

— Embarrassing presence of observers of all religions at the sessions of the Council.

— Nomination of four moderators.

— Intervention by a woman at the Council.

— Trip to the State of Israel.  Contact with the Chief Rabbi.

— Hugging Athenagoras, the Orthodox patriarch, with the lifting of his excommunication.  Athenagoras had a Masonic funeral.  [During his trip in the Holy Land on January 6, 1964, on the Mount of Olives, Paul VI hugged Athenagoras I, a 33rd degree Mason.  This was the first meeting between a pope and a patriarch since the Council of Florence (1439).  At the pope’s initiative, he and the patriarch together blessed the audience.]

— Intervention against the Cœtus Internationalis Patrum [group of conservative bishops, among them : Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro-Mayer], but support of the liberal cardinals.

— At St. Paul Outside the Walls, the handing over of the the papal ring to Ramsey, Anglican “archbishop” of Canterbury – in fact, a layman2, Mason, and heretic.   Blessing given with the Pope to the whole present Church : cardinals, bishops, clergy, etc. [This took place March 23, 1966.]

— Visit to Bogotà to support the claims of the “camperinos” and indirectly of the “guerillas”.

— Visit to the Philippines to arrive at Hong Kong where a pro-communist speech was to be given, but it was forbidden by the governor of Hong Kong.

— Decree for mixed marriages, without a requirement for Catholic baptism of the children.

— Nomination of a commission for the birth control pill, expecting it to take two years to decide !

— Decree on “Eucharistic hospitality” permitting Protestants to receive the Eucharist.

— Secretariat for unity with pro-Lutheran declarations.

— Secretariat for non-Christians.

— Suppression of holy days of obligation.

— Suppression of the Eucharistic fast.

— Suppression of abstinence.

— Permission of Saturday Masses for Sunday.

— Permission of cremation.

— Concelebration of Anglican pastors in the Vatican.

— Blessing of dancing and screaming Pentecostals at St. Peter’s.

— Kissing the feet of the Orthodox.

— Sending the flag of Lepanto back to the Muslims.

— Sending the head of St. James to the Orthodox.

And all the big reforms :

— Liturgical reforms.

— Reform of the seminaries.

— Democratization of the institutions : synod of bishops at Rome ;

— episcopal conferences without a precise delimiting of power ; diocesan priestly councils.

— Reform of the Roman Curia and especially of the Holy Office.

— Reform of the nomination of bishops.

— Revision and modernization of all the Constitutions of religious societies.

— Obligatory resignation of bishops at 75 years of age.

— Ousting of cardinals from the Conclave at 80 years of age3.”

2. To this impressive list, one can add other acts.

a) First, some facts taken from the book by Albert Briault and Pierre Fautrad, Le Ralliement de Rome à la Révolution4 [Rallying Rome to the Revolution]:

— Gift of the cross and ring to the Buddhist U’Thant [Secretary General of the UN].

— Wearing of the Ephod of the Jewish high priest alongside the pectoral cross.

— Communal prayer at the C.O.E. at Geneva.

— Participation in an ecumenical celebration in Sydney.

— Abolition of the minor orders and the subdiaconate.

— Systematic replacement of faithful bishops with progressive, even communist ones.

— Replacement of curacies and vicarages with “priestly teams“.

— Suppression of the Anti-Modernist Oath.

— Heretical, ecumenical translations of Holy Scripture.

— Heretical Dutch catechism circulated everywhere.

— Catholic universities and major seminaries become homes of heresy.

— Almost complete liberty left to the perverters (both clergy and laity) of the children and youth, in the schools and even churches.

b) Let us add some facts taken from the prolific, but not always well-referenced studies of Fr. Luigi Villa 5:

— On March 20, 1965, Paul VI received an audience of the directors of the Rotary Club, a Masonic organization, and said that the motto (“friendship and culture“) of this para-Masonic group was good, that their method (periodic festive meetings) was good, and finally that the ends (professional needs, progress of the culture, friendly relations between men and the nations) were good 6

— Paul VI wanted Giordano Gamberini (1915-2003) 7 to be part of the steering committee of the Bibbia Concordata 8.   Gamberini was grandmaster of the Grand Orient of Italy, one of the founders and “bishop”, under the name of Tau Julianus, of the Italian Gnostic Church.   Gamberini was responsible for the translation of the Gospel of St. John. He later wrote the funeral eulogy of Paul VI in La Rivista Massonica9:

To us, it is the death of him who made the condemnation [of Freemasonry] of Clement XII and of his successors fall.  That is, it is the first time – in the history of modern Freemasonry – that the Head of the greatest Western religion dies not in a state of hostility with the Freemasons. […] F or the first time in history, the Freemasons can pay respect to the tomb of a Pope, without ambiguities or contradiction 10.

— On June 2, 1971, Paul VI received a public audience, at the Vatican, of the members of the “Masonic Lodge” of the B’nai B’rith, and he addressed them thus:

Dear friends, it is with joy that we welcome to St. Peters your distinguished group of leaders of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith 11

— Under Paul VI the suppression of the excommunication of the Freemasons was prepared.  In August 1972 Cardinal Seper, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, communicated to Fr. Riquet S.J.:

“The interpretation of Canon 2335 restricting the excommunication to members of the associations that act against the Church can be admitted.”

Two years later Cardinal Seper addressed a letter to Msgr. Krol, president of the episcopal conference of the United States.  Due to the large diversity of situations from country to country, the cardinal explained, the Holy See did not change the general legislation in force “until the new Code of Canon Law be published by the competent pontifical commission“.  For particular cases the penal law “should always be interpreted restrictively” ; but, he continues :

“One can thus surely teach and apply the opinion of the authors saying that Canon 2335 concerns only the Catholics who are part of associations that act against the Church 12.”

c) Regarding the relations of Paul VI with Freemasonry:

Here is an excerpt from number 197 of the Lettres politiques by Jacques Ploncard d’Assac (reproduced in Itinéraires 305, pp. 166 ff.):

« Paris, June 1986 – The Italian Catholic review Chiesa Viva, in April 1986, published a letter by Fr. Rosario F. Esposito that plays an important role in the collusion with the Masonic lodges under the pontificate of Paul VI.  This letter is addressed to the grand-master Gamberini and was published in Rivista massonica of August 6, 1978:

“My dear Gamberini,” Fr. Esposito very amicably begins. He reports to his correspondent that a Dominican, Fr. Felix A. Morlion, founder of the International University “Pro Deo“, confided to him that, speaking one day with then-monsignor Montini, regarding the relations between the Church and Freemasonry, Montini had told him:  “In less than a generation, peace will be made between the two societies” (the Church and Freemasonry).

“Now that the Pontiff is deceased,” Fr. Esposito continued, “there is no reason to continue to keep the secret.  And the prediction – I would say almost the decision – is fully verified:  the meeting with Morlion must not have taken place before 1948-1950, the letter of the Holy Office to Cardinal Krol dated July 19, 1974, thus the terms of a generation were perfectly respected.

“Besides, Paul VI had, before even 1970, the occasion to bring other blows to the wall of Christian-Masonic enmity. The ‘acquiescence’ of the Vatican to the decision of the bishops of Scandinavia and Finland, according to which, converts from Protestantism, eventually enrolled in Masonry, would not be obliged to renounce it, but would be permitted to keep the two qualifications, Catholic and Masonic, dates from 1966 or 1968.  For him who knew the total intransigence, always professed by the Church, of the absolute rejection of Masonry, the acceptance of the Scandinavian-Baltic thesis could not but appear in all its revolutionary character.

“Furthermore, regarding the behavior of Paul VI  toward institutions that, in any manner, are linked to Masonry, one sees the same thing.  Receiving the members of the “Rotary Club,” object of distrust and rejection on the part of the Vatican, Paul VI did not fear to recognize that the Church had fallen into an excessive mistrust: now the way of dialogue and mutual trust has been found.” »

Some documents concerning Paul VI

1. Letter from Msgr. Lefebvre to Paul VI

This letter has a preliminary remark:

In response to that of Cardinal Baggio, prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, received July 10, 1976, ordering him to manifest to the Holy Father his regret for the ordinations done June 29.  He gave him a deadline of ten days.”

« Most Holy Father,

All the means of access permitting me to come to Your Holiness being forbidden, may God make that this letter arrive and express our sentiments of profound veneration, and at the same time formulate with an instant plea the object of our most ardent desires that, alas! seem to be subject to dispute between the Holy See and numerous faithful Catholics.

Most Holy Father,

deign to manifest your will to see the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ extend in this world by:

— restoring the public rights of the Church,

— rendering to the liturgy all its dogmatic value and its hierarchical expression,

— according to the Roman Latin Rite consecrated by many centuries of use,

— reestablishing the honor of the Vulgate, and

— restoring the catechisms to their true model, that of the Council of Trent.

Doing this, Your Holiness will restore the Catholic priesthood and the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over the people, families, and civil societies.

According to the example of your predecessors, it will render the correct conception of the false ideas that have become the idols of modern man: liberty, equality, fraternity, democracy.

May Your Holiness abandon the harmful enterprise of compromise with the ideas of modern man, an enterprise that originates from a secret agreement between the dignitaries of the Church and those of the Masonic lodges, since before the Council.

To maintain this orientation is to continue the destruction of the Church.  Your Holiness will easily understand that we cannot collaborate in such a disastrous design, which we would do if we were to consent to closing our seminaries.

May the Holy Ghost deign to give Your Holiness the graces of the gift of strength, such that it manifests by unequivocal acts that you are truly and authentically the successor- of Peter proclaiming that there is salvation only in Jesus Christ and in His mystical spouse, the holy Roman Catholic Church.

And may God… “

Marcel Lefebvre,

former Archbishop of Tulle.

Albano, July 17, 1976.

2. Msgr. Lefebvre’s assessment of Humanæ Vitæ of Paul VI

When one sees the time that Pope Paul VI allocated to solve the question of contraception, well! it is to despair of morality.  It is finished, because there is no longer morality.

He appointed a commission for it, and this commission took more than two years (two and a half years 13) before responding to a question that the Christians, the poor Christians in the pew, could answer right away: they knew well that it was forbidden.  You well know that one cannot have relations which prevent the conception of a child.  They knew it well.

So it needed to wait two and a half years to have a response.  During this time, well! evidently, the pill is spread everywhere.  One asked himself: “Since no one has said anything, it is because he is free.  What could be free, the pope could leave free.”

And then, behold, it is accomplished.  There is no way back.  Now look, the priests leave it entirely: “It is of no importance, you being free; one must judge according to his convictions.” 14

3. Excerpts from the Liber Accusationis of Abbé de Nantes

  • “To believe in man, build the world, liberate the people, knock down tyrants, develop culture, and restore democracy.  Paul is the prophet of this new age where all the religions, ceasing to oppose each other, comprise the Mouvement d’Animation Spirituelle de la Démocratie Universelle [Spiritual Animating Movement of Universal Democracy], the MASDU of Paul VI! […]”
  • I feel [this paternity] flowing out from me in concentric circles, and beyond the visible borders of the Church.  I feel I am the father of the entire human family.” […]
  • “So that the world goes well, Paul VI clearly conceived that he must be Pope, as De Gaulle saw that he must be Chairman.”

4. Declaration of Paul VI to the bishops assembled at the closing of the Council, December 7, 1965

The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God.  And what happened?  Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation?  There could have been, but there was none.  The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the council.  A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it.  The attention of our council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs (and these needs grow in proportion to the greatness which the son of the earth claims for himself).  But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the Council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind 15.”

One can compare this declaration with the instructions St. Pius X gave in his first encyclical:

We must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time – the substitution of man for God 16.”

Freemasonry, whose goal is the destruction of the Catholic Church, promotes the worship of man.  Hearing Paul VI, the Freemasons must have enjoyed their triumph.  Is this not the actualization of the plans that they forged in the 19th century?