Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part 5)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part 5)

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued,number 5)

The Four Constitutions

Section II

Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum - on the sources of Revelation

What are the principle errors contained this constitution?

This Constitution makes an important step toward Protestant theology in refusing to distinguish clearly the two sources of Revelation.  It speaks of a progress of Tradition and utilizes the expression “living Tradition”, in the manner of the Modernists.

How does DV alter the doctrine of the two sources of Revelation?

DV leaves aside the doctrine of the councils of Trent and Vatican I on the “two sources” of Revelation (Tradition and Holy Scripture), for making Tradition and the Magisterium converge into Scripture alone: “sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture […] in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. […They] form one sacred deposit of the word of God” (§ 9 and 10).

Note in the passage the expression “in a certain way (quodammodo)”: things are left in flux without daring to affirm the error frankly.  We will find elsewhere this manner of speaking.

It is an important step toward reconciling with the Protestant heresy that denies Tradition as the source of Revelation.

How does DV speak of a progress of Tradition?

According to the infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church, Revelation terminated with the death of the last Apostle1: There is thus no objective progress of the deposit of the faith (by new truths that would be revealed); at the most, there is a subjective progress (a more precise definition of truths contained in the deposit of the faith).

Without making this major distinction, DV admits a progress of Tradition: “Now what was handed on by the Apostles […] develop[s] [proficit] in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. […] For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.” (§ 8).

How did DV introduce the Modernist notion of living Tradition?

In paragraph 12, DV says that Holy Scripture should be read taking into account “living tradition of the whole Church“.

This is also an ambiguous expression which could ultimately receive an orthodox interpretation (the immutable Tradition received from the Apostles also continues today to be transmitted by the current, living Magisterium of the Church), but which evidently, in context, favors the Modernist idea of a Tradition that is living because it is the expression of the sense of the faith of the people of God, and thus susceptible to evolution.

It is this latter meaning that will be used after the Council: In the name of living Tradition, the Conciliar Church will try to excommunicate Msgr. Lefebvre2  and to justify the ‘hermeneutic of renewal in continuity’ (the claim that post-conciliar Church is in continuity with the Church before the Council, because there is a continuity of the living subject, even if there is discontinuity on the doctrinal plane3).

Are there other errors in DV?

On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Vatican II, Le Sel de la terre 55 (pp. 26-38) indicated as contestable points:

* A false notion of Revelation described as a dialogue of salvation and a conversation with God (DV 2), not as a deposit of supernatural truths;

* A new approach to the faith (DV 5) considered as a total abandonment of the person to God is reconciled with the faith-trust of the Protestants or the faith-sentiment of the Modernists;

* The protestantization of the Holy Church and in particular the abandonment of the traditional notion of inerrancy of the Scriptures for the benefit of a truth relative to salvation (DV 11).4

It could also be added that DV encourages ecumenical translations of the Bible,5 which is an unheard-of novelty in the Church.

(To be continued)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Four)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Four)

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued,number 4)

The Four Constitutions


Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Church

What is the importance of this Constitution?

It comes first, because the new theology being subjective, as we have said, the conciliar Fathers first focus their attention on the subject (the Church) before focusing on the object (the doctrine to teach).  But in modifying the conception of the Church, in adopting a “new ecclesiology” 1, the Council overturns the entire Church and commences its self-destruction.

What are the principal errors contained in this Constitution?

This constitution Changes the notion of the Church, and presents the principles of collegiality and liturgical revolution.

Wherein does this constitution change the notion of the Church?

Until Vatican II, the Church was a society into which one entered by valid baptism, and from which one left by apostasy, heresy, schism, or a major excommunication2.

In LG (Lumen Gentium), the Church is not defined in a precise manner:

* LG says that it is “like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race” (§1), which allows for adding to its proper finality (the union with God through Our Lord Jesus Christ) a second finality (the unity of all of mankind).

* LG also says that the Church is the “people of God” (an expression used forty times in LG), which allows for including :

non-Catholics who wrongly claim to be “Christians”, through the idea of connection (coniunctio: this signifies that a certain imperfect communion exists in Christ, which accomplishes a “real union in the Holy Spirit“, §15),

— and those not even claiming to be Christians, through the idea of ordination (ordination: this signifies more or less that there exists a certain communion, yet imperfect, in the same God) 3 .

Finally, LG says that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church » (§8), instead of affirming that they are identical4.

All these affirmations dilute the boundaries of the Church, and also prepare the way for ecumenism and interreligious dialogue such as what was practiced after the Council.

Where does this constitution introduce bicephalism [= The condition of having two heads]  into the Church?5

LG, after having recalled that the pope “has full, supreme and universal power over the Church“, immediately adds that “The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church” (§22).  While the Church was until then a monarchy with the single supreme power, that of the pope, LG suddenly affirms a double supreme power, a two-headed Church.  Next to the pope, the college of bishops (including the pope) also has supreme power.

This change of doctrine was so significant that Pope Paul VI believed it necessary to intervene and draft a “nota explicativa prævia” (preliminary note of explanation) to join to the Constitution, where he mitigated this change: “so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question […] the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church.”

This note thus prevents the college alone from exercising supreme power in the Church, which is a condemned heresy, but it does not suppress “bicephalism”.  The new Code of canon law of 1983 ratifies this doctrine of double supreme power in its canon 336: “The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members […] is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church.”

Where does this Constitution present the principles of collegiality?

Other than the fact that LG attributes supreme power to the episcopal college, it also affirms that “consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing” (§21) and that “one is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body“, “The order of bishops” being “also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church” (§22).

Thus, LG suggests that the bishops already have a certain jurisdiction, at least over the universal Church, before receiving it from the Pope.  And the nota explicativa prævia does not correct this point.

On the contrary, the traditional doctrine, repeated again in 1958 by Pius XII 6, teaches that the jurisdiction over his own proper diocese comes to the bishop through the Pope, who gives him the power of jurisdiction really distinct from orders.  Moreover, the Pope, if he wants, can make the body of bishops participate in the supreme power of teaching and governing over the universal Church by uniting them in an ecumenical council, but only during the council7.

Where does this constitution present the principle of democracy and liturgical revolution in the Church?

Until Vatican II, the Church was considered essentially hierarchical, with a distinction of divine right between clerics, who alone hold the triple power (of orders, jurisdiction, and teaching), and the laity: “By divine institution, clerics in the Church are distinct from the laity” (1917 Code of Canon Law, c. 107).

LG begins by treating the “People of God” in general (chapter 2) before speaking of the hierarchy (chapter 3), as if it issued from it; it treats of the “common priesthood of the faithful” before speaking of the “ministerial priesthood“, as if there were two different forms of the same priesthood.

It is to forget that the hierarchy of the Church forms the faithful: Our Lord Jesus Christ formed a dozen Apostles who themselves founded the Church: “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Mt. 16:18).

It is also to forget that only the ministerial priest is a priest in the proper sense of the word.  Sacerdos (priest) comes from “sacra dans“: he who gives sacred things, and only those who have received the power of orders can do this; the baptized laity only have a power to receive these sacred things.

Without saying it openly, the door was opened for the invasion of the laity, men and women, into the governing posts of the Church (from parish liturgical committees to Roman dicasteries) and the liturgical revolution was given a doctrinal basis, in relegating the priest to the simple role of presider over the assembly.  And thus Paul VI signed this heretical definition of the new mass:  “The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.  For this reason, Christ’s promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: ‘Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst’.8

Are there other errors in LG?

At paragraph no. 29, this document opens the possibility of ordaining married deacons without requiring them to practice perfect continence, contrary to the use of the Church preserved in the West since the Apostles.  Paul VI will accomplish this in the motu proprio of 18 June 1967, Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem, which expressly refers to this passage of LG.

To be continued (next time : Constitution Dei Verbum, on the sources of Revelation)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Three)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Three)

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued, Part 3)

The Documents of the Council : Overview

What are the documents of the Council ?

The Council promulgated 16 documents :

— 4 Constitutions (documents of essentially doctrinal content, the first two being qualified as « dogmatic », the fourth as « pastoral ») :

* Lumen Gentium (LG) : the Church.

* Dei Verbum (DV) : Divine Revelation.

* Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) : the liturgy.

* Gaudium et Spes (GS) : the Church in the contemporary world.

— 9 Decrees (texts of the practical order and concrete application) :

* Christus Dominus (CD) : the pastoral duty of bishops.

* Presbyterorum Ordinis (PO) : the ministry and life of priests.

* Perfectæ Caritatis (PC) : the renovation and adaptation of religious life.

* Optatam totius Ecclesiæ Renovationem (OT) : the formation of priests.

* Apostolicam Actuositatem (AA) : the apostolate of the laity.

* Ad Gentes (AG) : the missionary activity of the Church.

* Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE) : the Eastern Catholic Churches.

* Unitatis redintegratio (UR) : ecumenism.

* Inter Mirifica (IM) : the mass media.

— 3 Declarations  (texts addressed to all men) :

* Dignitatis Humanæ (DH) : religious liberty.

* Nostra Aætate (NA) : the relations with non-Christian religions.

* Gravissimum Educationis Momentum (GE) : Christian education.

Where did these texts come from ?

Before the Council an important preparation was in place.  About twenty preparatory schemas were released.  But the majority of the schemas were rejected by the Council fathers because they were judged too tainted with traditional doctrine1.  Thus the texts could be developed beginning with the schemas that adopted « the forms of inquiry and literary formulation of modern thought2, » as Pope John XXIII demanded.

Is this teaching complete ?

The teaching is extensive : the edition of the Acts of the Council by Centurion comprises more than 700 pages.  However, it lacks a key document : a text condemning the current errors imperiling the faith, as all the preceding councils have done.  There was even a schema prepared for a “dogmatic Constitution to preserve the faith intact”3, but it was rejected with the others.

Pope John XXIII called for “the medicine of mercy rather than the weapons of severity ; and, she thinks she meets today’s needs by explaining the validity of her doctrine more fully rather than by condemning.”4  Nevertheless, the « good pope John » recognized that « there are…false doctrines, opinions, or dangers to be avoided and dispersed 5. »  Among these false doctrines, there was the « new theology » condemned, among others, by the schema of the « dogmatic Constitution on the deposit of the faith, » and that one finds in a great part of the texts promulgated by the Council and the Conciliar Church 6.

(To be continued)

An interview with Fr. Paul Morgan, Former Superior of the SSPX District of the UK

An interview with Fr. Paul Morgan, former superior of the SSPX District of the U.K.

The following is an English translation of an interview Fr. Paul Morgan gave in French on December 7, 2017.

English translation comes from:


I am Father Paul Morgan, ordained by Bishop Lefebvre at Ecône in 1988.  After that, I was 4 years in the district house in London as an assistant.  Following this, I was the 1st Superior of the Society of St. Pius X in the Philippines for 4 years, until 1996.  Then 2 years as a school principal at St Mary’s School in England and then 5 years as a prior at Post Falls in Idaho, USA.  And then 12 years as district superior of Great Britain, Ireland and Scandinavia, until 2015.  Then sabbatical year at Montgardin, which I had asked for.  And then 2016-2017, Prior in Vancouver, Canada.

What is your current situation?

Right now, I am outside the Society, since I resigned on August 9 of this year [2017] because of the marriage affair.

Why did the marriage affair make you quit?

It seemed to me, it always seems to me, that it is an essential compromise to accept the principle that priests representing modern dioceses come to us, in the bastions of Tradition, to receive the promises of the bride and groom. Even if in practice we are a little restricted in such things, we have accepted the principle. And that’s why, in concrete terms, I wrote my letter of resignation.

Why react now?

I think there were many of us, quite a few priests and superiors themselves, who had reacted against the new way of doing things, even before the 2012 chapter. There were many of us in Albano in 2011 to say to Bishop Fellay, very respectfully, that these steps should not be continued in order to reach an agreement with modernist Rome.  So, we have already done a great deal in the Society, among ourselves, with the superiors to denounce and oppose these approaches.  For example, in 2012, the district of Great Britain was ready, in its entirety, to break away if they made a false agreement with modernist Rome.  So it is not just this year that we have begun to react, but we have already for years.

Why didn’t you react publicly?

I think the manifesto, the statement of the 7 deans and superiors of friendly communities in France, was very, very well put.  So publicly, that was already explained.  And I can also say that I have done things in order and according to the rules, by sending a manifesto signed by several priests from Canada to Bishop Fellay and to Menzingen, explaining quite simply, the serious problems with these new directives for receiving marriage vows.  So right away we talked about it on the Internet, so it became public, etc.. So, I chose to do things that way.  Now, I speak more publicly, since I’ve had a little time to organize myself – and we left Canada with a suitcase in our hands, not knowing where to go because we never thought of being alone, on the outside like that.

What prospects for the 2018 General Chapter?

Unfortunately, I do not have much hope in the general chapter next year.  It seems to me that with the change of minds that has been taking place for several years now – so that we think that Rome is now kind, Rome loves us, we can make an agreement or do more good saying inside the Church, as if we were outside the Church until now, it’s unbelievable, isn’t it – so I don’t have much hope. And we can see that good priests like the 7 deans, for example, who have made a very good document – and a special hello to Father de la Rocque in exile in the Philippines, a country that I like very much but which is still in exile – we see what happens to priests who denounce problems respectfully and rightly: we punish them!  So I think the superiors in the chapter will simply do what Menzingen tells them to do.

What about your apostolate?

At the moment, I have no official apostolate. I am in contact with a lot of priests, in France and abroad, as well as with the faithful, encouraging and supporting them.  Also with priests who have left [the SSPX] already a few months or a few years ago, for reasons that are in the end quite similar.

It is very encouraging to see the strong religious communities in France, religious men and women. I am in contact with them but I understand that this is a difficult situation for these communities, which may be at risk of sanctions if they show themselves too publicly in agreement with priests like myself.

Nevertheless, we celebrate Mass, we pray, we visit confreres, we have been able to preach a retreat already, we have made visits on the right and on the left. I get a lot of invitations from other countries to come and help.  But at the moment, for rather practical matters we have to organise ourselves before embarking on any future activities. But I think, it seems to me that in June-July 2018, we are going to shoot into action. I think there will be more positive reactions in the coming year.

In connection with the bishops consecrated by Bishop Williamson?

Yes, if need be, of course, since we need bishops for Sacred orders and confirmations. Consecrating bishops in this emergency, as Archbishop Lefebvre himself had said, can be repeated. This is not something reserved exclusively for Archbishop Lefebvre. And yes, we are quite willing to collaborate with the faithful, with faithful Catholics.

In conclusion?

I conclude by saying that we always have hope in the Good Lord. I think of Archbishop Lefebvre who was alone. He resigned some the Holy Ghost Fathers so as not to have any part in the destruction of his congregation. So priests like him and certainly many others, did this for important reasons. Let us try to make contacts, to gather together in order to help other priests who, for the moment, remain within the Society, hoping to organize something to help them as also [to help] the sound faithful. There’s a lot of work to be done. We have hope.

And then, finally, Our Lady of Fatima spoke about diabolic disorientations. It seems to me that what is happening here is an example, right here in 2017, [an example] of this confusion of mind. So, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, we must remain faithfully, we must keep the principles of the fight for the faith, the good fight and then, if we have to suffer by doing this, God’s Holy will must be done.

No one is exempt (excused) from the fight!

No one is exempt (excused) from the fight!

By Fr Calmel O.P.

Christian spiritual combat, peace amid the struggle, joy in destitution when everything is broken and taken away: These images are too warlike, some say to us, and in any case, they only apply to bygone ages or reactionary people.

But we, in our turn, tell them, how long must you wait before you see, that in the Church militant, everyone, without exception, participates in the battle?

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves… I have come to bring a sword… In this world you will have persecutions… Know that the world will hate you.”

Since when do these words of the Master not apply equally to each of the faithful:

— to the cloistered sister, as they do to the missionary;

— to the monk in his monastery, as they do to the parish priest in his parish;

— to the Christian laden down with temporal duties, as they do to the old man lying on his death bed.

We just need to say that the combat training and methods used are not the same for, say, missionaries as they are for enclosed religious.  It would be absurd, even disastrous, to think they might be interchangeable:

* Thus it is that the missionary must spend enough time looking at Our Lord to then be able to uncompromisingly preach His word, in that way giving up his life for his flock.

* An enclosed nun’s duty, on the other hand, is to keep her eyes solely on Our Lord, without being occupied with holy preaching, leaving the Lord to place on her shoulders whatever burden He pleases, and for reasons known to Him alone; that’s the way a religious gives her life for the flock.  But she does still give up her life.  No one is exempt.

The troops are different yet again, and their method of combat is different, but they are nevertheless combat troops and the orders are always the same. “Do not surrender the position that has been entrusted to you by the King.”

Hermit or preaching friar, mother of a family, or virgin consecrated to God living out in the world, each has been given a position to guard, and for each the primary duty is to die at his or her post, rather than surrender the position entrusted to them by the King of Kings.


Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Two)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Two)

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

Introduction (continued)

Insofar as popes and bishops spoke at the Council, should not one then obey and accept Vatican II?

The council Fathers decided to adopt “forms of inquiry and literary formulation of modern thought”1, i.e., the “new theology”2 founded on modern philosophy. Now, this philosophy is subjective: truth does not come from outside; it comes, at least in part, from the knowing subject. But if truth does not come from outside, the hierarchy cannot impose it: so, the Council inaugurated a new type of magisterium, a living and dialoging magisterium that has lost its binding aspect.

Why did the council Fathers adopt this new theology?

Since they wanted to adapt the teaching of the Church to the modern world, they had to find a way to modify this teaching. The solution was to adopt modern subjectivist philosophy, according to which, as we have said, truth comes, at least in part, from the knowing subject. And consequently it evolves with it. What was true yesterday (e.g., that the Church cannot adopt religious liberty) is not true today3.

So, thanks to this new theology, one could perform an updating of the Church and reconcile it with the modern world.

Are there calculated ambiguities in the Council?

Father Schillebeeckx himself affirms this in the Dutch review De Bazuin (23 January 1965)4:

A theologian of the doctrinal commission—to whom, already during the second session, I had expressed my disappointment in the face of the minimalism on papal collegiality—responded to me, to calm me down: “We will explain it in a diplomatic way, but after the Council we will draw the implicit conclusions.”

Were there external influences on the Council?

The power of the media exerted a very strong influence. It was the fear of this influence which made Pius XI and Pius XII abandon their projects to reconvene a council to pursue the work interrupted by the First Vatican Council.

There was also a more discreet but nonetheless real influence due to the more or less secret agreements with the Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Communists, and Freemasons5.

—With the Orthodox and the Communists: For inviting Orthodox observers to the Council, John XXIII committed to not condemn communism6.

—With the Jews: Jewish leaders secretly received, at the Community Center of Peace at Strasbourg during the winter of 1962-1963, Father Congar O.P., sent by Cardinal Bea in the name of John XXIII, on the brink of the Council, to ask what the Jews expected from the Catholic Church7; Cardinal Bea himself secretly visited the Jewish American Committee at New York, 31 March 1963, with the same aim8.

—With the Protestants and Freemasons: In September 1961 Cardinal Bea secretly met in Milan the pastor Willem A. Visser’t Hooft, secretary general of the Ecumenical Council of Churches (very masonic organization of Protestant origin). Later, 22 July 1965, the same Ecumenical Council of Churches published the list of its seven requirements regarding religious liberty: all of them were satisfied by the Council in the document Dignitatis humanæ9.

[End of the introduction]

(Catechism to be continued)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part One)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part One)

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015


Vatican II is not a council like the others. This council, which was held in St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican in four sessions from 1962 until 1965 under the pontificates of Popes John XIII (1958-1963) and Paul VI (1963-1978), was the occasion, if not the principal cause, of the gravest crisis the Church has known in its history.

The studies concerning this council are numerous, but often voluminous and very technical.  We have thought that it would be useful to provide for Catholics of good will a relatively short text, explaining what Vatican II declared and what is unacceptable for Catholics who want to remain faithful to the traditional infallible teaching of the Church.

After a brief introduction on the authority of the council, we will briefly analyze each of the 16 documents, presenting them in a thematic order.


The authority of the Second Vatican Council

What is an ecumenical council?

An ecumenical council is an assembly of bishops of the entire world convoked by the pope, who conducts its meetings (called “sessions”), whether directly or via legates, and who approves the texts, so that they have a binding value for the whole Church. There have been in the history of the Church twenty ecumenical councils since the Council of Nicaea in 325 until the First Vatican Council in 1870.

Is Vatican II a council like the others?

Vatican II is an atypical council because the popes who convoked and conducted it, John XXIII and Paul VI, declared that it was not a dogmatic council, like all the preceding councils, but a pastoral council.  In other words, its aim was not to define doctrine against errors, but to perform an updating (aggiornamento) of this doctrine to adapt it to the thinking of our contemporaries.

Does Vatican II contain infallible teachings?

Here again, differently than all the preceding ecumenical councils, the Second Vatican Council does not contain any infallible teaching.  For a council to be infallible, it must pronounce solemn judgments, which this council refused to do.

Even if it is not infallible, can it not be admitted that Vatican II was assisted by the Holy Ghost?

Our Lord Jesus Christ promised the assistance of the Holy Ghost for the transmission of Revelation: “the Paraclete the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and suggest unto you all things whatsoever I shall say to you.” (Jn 14:26) [Rheims version].

But, without renouncing the transmission of Revelation, the Council proposed the aggiornamento of the Church, i.e., its adaptation to the modern world, notably by introducing into the Church “the best expressed values of two centuries of ‘liberal’ culture”10, and by working to “smooth the way toward unity of mankind.”11.

Why cannot the Holy Ghost aid the Church in acquiring the values of liberal culture, once purified and corrected12?

Liberalism is an error condemned by two centuries of teaching from the Magisterium of the Church.  Such a condemnation is infallible in virtue of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

As the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself, He cannot assist the council fathers in making these values of liberalism enter into the Church.

Why cannot the Holy Ghost aid the Church in working toward the unity of mankind?

The Church was founded to save souls and unite them to Our Lord Jesus Christ.  In so doing, the Church works indirectly for peace, propagating charity in souls: “Seek therefore first the Kingdom of God, and the justice of him [the union to Our Lord Jesus Christ by grace]: and all these things [including peace] shall be given you besides.” (Mt. 6:33) [Rheims version].

But today Freemasonry seeks to reshape the unity of mankind (“globalism”) by human means and by positively excluding Our Lord Jesus Christ in virtue of “secularism”.

As was especially seen after the Council (with the secularization of the States and inter-religious meetings), the men of the Church collaborate in this work by means of religious liberty, ecumenism, and inter-religious dialogue. The Holy Ghost cannot assist the Church in working toward an end that is not Her own.

(To be continued)

The Canonical Recognition in Question

The Canonical Recognition in Question

About the Conciliar Church

(Editorial of Le Sel de la terre 101)

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH, its existence, and its nature, several studies have been published in Le Sel de la terre1.

[Editor’s Note:  See also the  May, 2015 article on this website:  Is there a conciliar church? ]

In Le Sel de la terre 59, the Conciliar Church is described as the society of the baptised placed under the direction of the current Popes and bishops so as to promote Conciliar ecumenism, and who, consequently, accept the teachings of Vatican II, practice the new liturgy and go by the new Canon law2.

In Le Sel de la terre 97, the Conciliar Church was shown as a transition between the Catholic Church and the Counter-Church. The conclusion of this article gave, as an example of this transition, the Hellfest, Hell Feast, right at the heart of the French Vendée region, where over one hundred thousand youngsters have come these past few years during the summer in order to celebrate the devil. Between their Catholic grand parents celebrating God on feast days like Corpus Christi and these demonic grandchildren, only one Conciliar generation was enough to make the transition.

Let us also mention the “Little Vatican II Catechism” published in Le Sel de la terre 93 (Spring 2015), which shows how Conciliar teaching was influenced by masonic ideas; warnings about the Counter-Church (see Le Sel de la terre 92, Summer 2015, p. 134-138); and “News from Rome” published in Le Sel de la terre 89, 91 and 94, exposing the Conciliar Church efforts to establish a secular globalisation in concert with Freemasonry.

From these various studies, we can conclude that the Conciliar Church is being used as an instrument at the hands of Freemasonry in order to compel the Catholic faithful to work volens nolens [Editor’s Note: “willingly but at the same time involuntarily”] towards general globalisation, i.e. the building of the masonic “Temple”.

Archbishop Lefebvre had seen it and clearly explained it in his “spiritual testament“:

This “Conciliar Church” is imbued with the principles of 1789. These are Masonic principles with respect to religion and religions in general and with respect to civil society. It is an imposter inspired by Hell for the destruction of the Catholic religion, of its Magisterium, of its priesthood, and of the Sacrifice of Our Lord3.

And he rightly drew the following conclusion:

It is therefore a strict duty for any priest wishing to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church, so long as she will not return to the tradition of the Church Magisterium and of the Catholic Faith4.

May we accept a canonical recognition?

When Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X (in 1970), he obtained a canonical erection for the Society as a pious union from Bishop Charrière, of Fribourg. It remained canonically recognised by Rome for five years.

Eventually, on November 21st, 1974, following a canonical visit to Écône by two Roman envoys, Archbishop Lefebvre made a declaration expressing his refusal of “the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.“

From that moment on, a clear demarcation line had been drawn between the two “Churches”. The « Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies » would soon be called Conciliar Rome by Msgr Benelli5, a name which was to last.

The canonical “suppression” of the Society of St. Pius X was carried out by Bishop Mgr Mamie on May 6th, 1975. Archbishop Lefebvre used to say this was ”irregular and unjust anyway“6.

This “suppression” was consequently considered as null and void by the Archbishop as well as by those who follow the rules of the Catholic Church, while it was regarded as valid by those in line with the Conciliar Church.

Nonetheless, we hear more and more about a “canonical recognition” of the Society of St. Pius X by the current Vatican authorities. May this kind of recognition be accepted?

Per se, lawfulness in the Catholic Church is a good thing, and it is even necessary. Archbishop Lefebvre asked for this validation in 1970, and obtained it.

Yet, today, if a canonical recognition were to be granted, it would be according to the new Code of canon law, just like in the case of the jurisdiction which was recently granted by the Pope to the Society of St Pius X.

This would be a good enough reason to refuse such a recognition7.

Moreover such a recognition, under the current circumstances, would have other drawbacks such as:

— We would become part of Conciliar pluralism, Tradition being recognized as well as the charismatics, the Focolari, the Opus Dei, etc. It is truth put on the same level as error, at least in the public opinion.

— It would allow in our chapels a number of faithful who clearly mean to remain Conciliar, Modernist and Liberal, with all the consequences, since weakening of faith leads to bad morals.

— It would necessarily mean reducing attacks against errors professed by the very Authorities we would have to report to. It is anyway easy to realise that the superiors of the Society of St. Pius X have already reduced their criticism against current errors (Martin Luther Year, Amoris Lætitia, etc.)

— Finally such a recognition would place us directly under superiors who are themselves under Masonic influence. Divine Providence allowed that Archbishop Lefebvre and those who have followed him remain exempt from this masonic influence: it would be a serious lack of prudence to deliberately submit oneself to it. Freemasonry started exactly three centuries ago (24th June 1717). After destroying Catholic States (through revolutions from the 18th to the 20e century), and enslaving the Church (the Alta Vendita plan implemented by the Vatican II Council), will it succeed in extending its influence over Archbishop Lefebvre’s work? This would look like its victory down here on earth.

As a conclusion, a canonical solution could only be considered with a doctrinally converted Rome, a Rome that would have proven this conversion by working for the reign of Our Lord Jesus-Christ and fighting against its enemies.

Pope Francis and the marriages in the Society of Saint-Pius X: Non possumus – We cannot enter into a canonical structure submitting ourselves to a modernist authority

Pope Francis and the marriages in the Society of Saint-Pius X:  Non possumus – We cannot enter into a canonical structure submitting ourselves to a modernist authority

Sermon of Father Philippe François (FSSPX) given on Easter Sunday 16th April 2017 at Le Trévoux (Britanny, France) where he exercises the functions of chaplain to the Little Sisters of Saint Francis

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

My reverend sisters, my dear brethren,

The grace of the feast of Easter is to fortify our faith.  And if our faith in Our Lord is fortified, by the same token our faith in His only and well-loved Bride, the Holy, Catholic and Roman Church is also fortified.  And that is very necessary in the testing times in which we live.

Two weeks ago, as you have learnt, Rome granted with certain conditions to the priests of the SSPX the jurisdiction to carry out marriages.  “Good news!” my cobbler said to me, “we are nearing the end of the tunnel.”

In reality, this jurisdiction was already given to us by the Church under the principles of the law which applies in times of crisis, in the state of necessity in which we find ourselves.  For almost fifty years, marriages which have been carried out in the priories of the SSPX and of Tradition have been valid.

But if one accepts the decision of Rome, one must accept the new code of canon law and the conciliar tribunals which apply this new code.

Now this new code destroys marriageIt changes the definition of marriage.  First of all this sacrament no longer has as its first end procreation and the catholic education of children, but it puts as its first end the good relationships between the husband and wife and their mutual support.  And this definition, you see, has led to tens of thousands of marriages being annulled during the last forty years, because, as the spouses no longer got on, the conciliar ecclesiastical judges said that there had been no marriage.  And these declarations of annulment of marriages, which had been concluded validly and then declared annulled, have accelerated again by the procedure which the Pope himself put in place eighteen months ago and which facilitates annulments even further.

This happened two weeks ago; and then almost two years ago it was the powers to hear confession which was accorded to the priests of the Fraternity, as if they did not already have these powers.  Now these powers to hear confession validly, the Church gives to your priests in a time of crisis, because canon law foresees supplied jurisdiction in the exceptional circumstances in which we live.  Archbishop Lefebvre often reminded us of one of the great principles of Saint Pius X’s code of canon law: ” the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church”

These two events and others show us that a process of canonical regularization is in train since the time of Benedict XVI and with Pope Francis in regard to the SSPX and also in regard to the whole family of Tradition since the time of Benedict XVI and with Pope Francis .

This process of canonical regularization at present underway can be compared to the process of setting fire to a log of green wood.  When one throws a log of green wood onto the fire, it is incapable of catching fire, for there is an obstacle: it is the sap.  So the flame begins to lick the log in order to heat it up and to drive out the sap.  Once the sap is driven off, the log takes fire.  It is the same in our case, there would be an obstacle to the canonical statute – the reciprocal mistrust between the conciliar world and us.  The Pope’s gestures of “ benevolence” have as their aim the removal of this obstacle.  These gestures do not formally imply canonical dependence on the Roman authorities.  Once the obstacle of mistrust is removed, not much will prevent the granting of the definitive statute, which is the statute of the personal prelature, which has been under discussion between the superiors of the SSPX and the Holy See for six years.  So there would be the granting of this personal prelature, this time with effective dependence on the Holy SeeNotably the bishop, superior of the personal prelature, will be nominated by the Pope and therefore will be able to be revoked by the Sovereign Pontiff.

So the question is posed: can we enter into such a canonical structure?

To answer this question, my dear brethren, we must ask ourselves if the situation in Rome has changed to such an extent that we could envisage a canonical solution, a thing which we regarded as impossible just a short while ago.  Alas!  We are forced to state that nothing essential has changed:

The actions of the Pope are more and more serious.  The accumulation of scandals during the four years of his pontificate makes us really think that with him modernism has become flesh.

The reaction of some conservative cardinals or prelates, although it is courageous and merits being praised, does not however call into question the principles of the crisis; on the contrary they cling to the Second Vatican Council which apparently was properly interpreted by Pope Benedict XVI .

— The attitude of the Holy See with regard to Tradition is not benevolent – far from it.  The experience of the Franciscans of the Immaculate reminds us of this as well as the treatment suffered by Cardinal Burke and the other cardinals who opposed, on the occasion of the synod, the post-synodal declaration on the family Amoris LaetitiaIn the end the demands of Rome with regard to us are basically still the same.  We must still, even if it is asked less insistently, accept the council with its religious liberty, its ecumenism and its collegiality.

So what precisely are the grounds for our previous refusal of an agreement with Rome?  More exactly can we accept an agreement with a neo-modernist Rome?  Such an acceptance would make us enter into conciliar pluralism.  It would silence our attacks against modern errors and would put our faith in immediate danger.

Consequently the canonical solution can only be envisaged with a Rome which has been doctrinally converted and which will have proved its conversion by working for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and by fighting against the adversaries of this reign.

By putting ourselves in the hands of the Roman authorities we would put in peril our particular good no less than the common good of the Church.

* First of all our own good: for we are responsible for our soul and thus of our faith.  Now without the faith one cannot be saved ( Hebrews 11,6) and nobody can pass off this responsibility onto others.

* Next we would put in jeopardy the common good of the Church.  In fact we are not masters of the faith in the sense that we cannot modify it at our pleasure.  The faith is the good of the Church, because it is through the faith that she lives the life of her Divine Spouse.  The faith is a common good not only because it is common to all Catholics but also because the participation of everyone is necessary (although not in the same measure for everyone) in order to preserve it.  Confirmation makes of you, my dear brethren, soldiers of Christ.  Every Christian must be ready to run risks in order to defend the faith.  And the priestly character, joined to the mission of the Church, gives to priests the sacred duty of preaching the faith and of defending it publicly by combatting error.  We are members of the Church militant which is attacked on all sides by error.  To no longer publicly raise our voices against error is to become the accomplices of error.  And this is what we are living in Tradition, notably since 2011.  In 2011 the abominable scandal of Assisi was renewed and the superiors of the Society unfortunately, we deplore it, were silent.  In 2015 the unthinkable canonization of John-Paul II took place and the superiors of the Society were silent.

So it is impossible today to put ourselves, by a canonical solution, in the hands of the neo-modernist authorities because of their neo-modernism.  That is the true obstacle to our recognition by these authorities.

In doing this, take note my dear brethren, far from challenging the authority of the Pope, we are convinced that we render to him the most important service, which is that of truth.  By our prayers, we beg the Immaculate Heart of Mary to obtain for the Sovereign Pontiff the grace of doctrinal conversion, so that once again “he confirms his brothers in the faith” (Luke 22, 32).  For we are Catholics, so we are Roman, we are Roman Catholics attached indefectibly to the seat of Peter, to the infallible teaching of all the successors of Peter up to Vatican Council II.  We are of eternal Rome, which is the irreconcilable enemy of neo-protestant and neo-modernist Rome.  There can be no peace possible with conciliar Rome.

Also we pray every day for the superiors of the SSPX that they do not fall into the trap which is being tendered to our dear Society.  That they may rediscover the prudence, fearlessness and firmness of Mgr. Lefebvre in his fight for Christ the King!

So we cannot – non possumus - enter into a canonical structure submitting ourselves to a modernist authority.

We say this because it is our duty.  How so?

* It is our duty firstly with regard to Our Lord and HIs Holy Church. We do not have the right to run risks by making peace with those who betray them.

* Then it is our duty for ourselves, because we have our souls to save and we cannot save ourselves without the faith whole and entire.

* Finally it is our duty with regard to the faithful who have recourse to our ministry.  We do not have the right to lead them very gradually towards the poisoned pastures of Vatican II.

My reverend sisters, my dear brethren, in the present torment and confusion, we must remain faithful to authentic Catholic principles and stay rooted in them.  And so that it may be the light which enlightens us and guides our steps, we must draw the practical consequences and apply them rigorously in our every-day life and in our daily attitudes.  Coherence and non-contradiction are the logical consequences of full and entire adhesion to the Truth, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ.  As cardinal Pie said: charity which is the bond of perfection, must be dictated and regulated by the truth and it is in this spirit of charity which we must act.

So on this Easter Sunday, the present hour is the hour of the beautiful virtue of hope, for we see perhaps with more clarity, the insufficiency of human means.  But Our Lord rises from the tomb today, as yesterday, and with him His Church!

May the Blessed Virgin Mary, may Our Lady of Good Hope, who alone on Easter morning knew how to maintain hope, may the Blessed Virgin Mary maintain in our hearts the divine hope, the Holy Hope, that which pleases God, that which will not be disappointed for eternity!

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

(Sermon published in “Le Sel de la terre” n° 101)