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?


Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Twelve) – CONCLUSION

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Twelve) – CONCLUSION

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued, number 12)

CONCLUSION

One could object that we have not cited the numerous passages that can have an acceptable meaning.  It is true that, in this brief study, we have especially noted the defective points of the conciliar texts.  But it suffices, for a text, to contain one error in order to be bad, as the scholastic dictum says: bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu (something is good when it is entirely so; the least defect renders it bad).

We have desired to make a sort of synthesis for understanding the principle defects of the conciliar documents.  We think that this study, in particular, shows that these texts convey a new doctrine, which today permits the conciliar Church to collaborate with the establishment of globalism.

One can also ask why there was not a more lively reaction, during the Council, to reject this new teaching.  It was doubtless necessary to await the application of the Council and the progressive implementation of globalism after 50 years, to better judge these texts and their influence.  The professor Johannes Dörmann began his studies on the new conciliar theology when he understood that the Assisi interreligious meeting in 1986 was a consequence of the Council.1

Today, in retrospect, one can ask if the plans of the High Lodge, devised one and a half centuries ago, are actually being realized:

You wish to establish the reign of the elect upon the throne of the prostitute of Babylon?  Let the clergy march under your banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys. […] Lay your nets like Simon Barjona.  Lay them in the depths of sacristies, seminaries, and convents […].  You will have fished up a Revolution in Tiara and Cope, marching with Cross and banner – a Revolution which needs only to be spurred on a little to put the four quarters of the world on fire. […]  [The dream] of the secret societies will be accomplished for the most simple of reasons, because it is based on the passions of man. […] our plans will succeed one day above even our most improbable calculations2.

We have put a heavy burden on your shoulders, dear Volpe.  We must work for the immoral education of the Church and come to it, by little means in a gradual manner, to the triumph of the revolutionary idea by a Pope. In this project which has always seemed a superhuman calculation, we walk still groping3.

Msgr. Lefebvre comments on this last phrase:

“Superhuman calculation,” Nubius said; he means a diabolical calculation!  Because it is to calculate the subversion of the Church by its head himself, which Msgr. Delassus4 calls the supreme attack, because one cannot imagine anything more subversive for the Church than a pope won over to liberal ideas, than a pope utilizing the keys of St. Peter in the service of the counter-Church!  But, is not this what we see currently, since Vatican II, since the new Canon Law?  With the false ecumenism and false religious liberty promulgated at Vatican II and applied by the popes with a cold perseverance despite all the wreckage it provokes after more than twenty years5.

Thus, has the supreme attack been committed?  Has the “famous” Masonic dream6 been realized?

Regardless of the—necessarily occult—influence of Freemasonry on the unfolding of the Council, one cannot deny, by simply analyzing the texts, that the doctrine of the Church was modified such that Catholics could collaborate in the construction of the Temple, viz., in the unification of mankind such as the “sons of the widow7” understand it?

Translation by A. A.


Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Eleven) – The Three Declarations (second and third of three): ‘Nostra ætate’ and ‘Gravissimum educationis’

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Eleven) – The Three Declarations (second and third of three):  ‘Nostra ætate’  and  ‘Gravissimum educationis’

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued, number 11)

The three Declarations (continued)

2. Nostra ætate (NA): Non-Christian Religions

What is the significance of Nostra ætate (NA) on the relations with non-Christian religions?

Like DH, it is a declaration, a text of little importance in principle.  And yet, it too, is one of the most important documents of the Council. 1    In favoring the unity of the human race, it does not suffice to promote ecumenism among Christians; it is also necessary to inaugurate inter-religious dialogue.

How does NA give a new teaching?

Never has the Church praised other “religions”.  She presented herself as the only true religion, the only one that really merits this name because she alone binds [religa] man to God.

But this document describes the false religions positively, ignoring the negative aspects (of jihad of the Muslims, human sacrifices in several “religions”, terrible idolatry, moral infamies, etc.2). Here are some examples:

In Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. […] Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. […] The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings […]

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men […] In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. […]

God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues—such is the witness of the Apostle. […] True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. […]

The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion.

Could you point out a sophism of this new teaching?

For example, the statement: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.”

There surely are truths in these false religions, otherwise they would not attract anyone.  But, as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. correctly said, truth is captive to error.  But these religions use these partial truths to distance men from the Catholic Church, the only ark of salvation.  What good is it to know these truths if one loses his soul?3

What are the consequences of this new teaching?

NA contains the seed for all the inter-religious gatherings that mushroomed after that which John Paul II convoked at Assisi in October 1986.  The different religions are presented as good and able to save their adherents.  The prayers performed in these religions are considered as agreeable to God.

In what concerns Judaism in particular, NA was the beginning of an engagement.4   The Church is no longer presented as the new elect people come to replace the old.5   The old Covenant would still be valid for the Jews, and they would not need to become Christians to be saved.

What does the Church become in this concert of religions?

The Conciliar Church becomes, according to the happy expression of Abbé de Nantes, the MASDU: the Spiritual Animating Movement of Universal Democracy.  Using the moral prestige accumulated by 2000 years of Catholic Tradition, the authorities of the Church contributed to establishing the spiritual nave of the Masonic Temple described by Msgr. Delassus in La Conjuration antichrétienne6.

3. Gravissimum educationis (GE): Christian Education

What do you say about Gravissimum educationis momentum (GE) on Christian education?

Even if it is a document of minor importance, one finds the same usual errors in it:

— a liberal ideology, with references to the declarations of the Rights of Man of 1948 and the rights of the child of 1959 (preamble)—the word “right” occurring 28 times in the text;

— the recommendation of ecumenism—one of the roles of the faculties being to promote “the dialogue with our separated brethren and with non-Christians” (§ 11) in view of the decree on ecumenism and with the method of Ecclesiam Suam;

— the recommendation of the right to religious liberty (§ 7).

We remark that the Council does not state that the purpose of a Catholic school is to transmit the Faith, but instead, that  « its proper function is to create for the school community a special atmosphere animated by the Gospel spirit of freedom and charity, to help youth grow according to the new creatures they were made through baptism » (§ 8).

(To be continued)


Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Ten) – The Three Declarations (first of three: Dignitatis Humanæ: on religious liberty)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued, number 10)

The three Declarations

1. Dignitatis Humanæ (DH) : religious liberty

What is the significance of Dignitatis humanæ (DH) on religious liberty?

Although DH is only a Declaration, thus in principle a minor text, it has a very great importance1. Cardinal Bea, following his secret visit with the secretary general of the Ecumenical Council of Churches, prepared a schema on this theme, which provoked a serious incident during the last session of the central preparatory commission: Msgr. Lefebvre often spoke of the confrontation between Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani, because it can be seen as a prelude of the confrontation between the “two Romes”2.

By adopting the “essential principle of the modern State”3, the Council accepted one of the fundamental claims of Freemasonry: “Christians should not forget that all routes [i.e., all religions] lead to God and sustain this courageous notion of liberty of thought that—and one can truly speak in this regard of a revolution coming out of our Masonic lodges—is marvelously spread over the dome of St. Peter’s4.

What is the fundamental teaching of DH?

DH (§ 2) teaches that “the human person has a right to religious freedom.  This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”  This right “has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person“; it “is to be recognized in the constitutional law…and thus it is to become a civil right“; and it “continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.”

Is this teaching opposed to the traditional teaching of the Church?6

Yes, this teaching is opposed to numerous magisterial texts, e.g.,

— to Mirari vos (15 August 1832)5 by Gregory XVI :

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. ‘But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,’ as Augustine was wont to say.”

— to Quanta Cura (8 December 1864) by Pius IX :

And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that ‘that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.’ From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society…’ But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching liberty of perdition”.

— and above all to the condemnation of the propositions of the Syllabus of Pius IX (8 December 1864):

77. « In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. »

Allocution “Nemo Vestrum,”July 26, 1855.

78. « Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. »

Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

79. « Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. »

Allocution “Nunquam Fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

Is this teaching opposed to the traditional practice of the Church?6

Indeed, from Constantine to Vatican II, the Church has always asked Christian princes to prohibit false cults, “except for real necessity of tolerance7.  It has never considered that “not disturbing the public order” is a necessary motive of tolerance, except to give this expression a meaning different from that of Vatican II.

But, as St. Thomas Aquinas said: “The custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things…  Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever.” (II-II, q. 10, a. 12).

It is thus certain that the declaration DH gives a false teaching.

Does the Conciliar Church not realize the contradiction?

The Conciliar Church does realize the difficulty in reconciling the teachings.  It has authoritatively affirmed that the reconciliation is possible (because, to them, Vatican II cannot be mistaken) and it has spawned many studies to try to reconcile the two teachings, but without success, each study developing a new argument for how the previous one does not suffice8.  Finally, during the doctrinal discussions, the Conciliar Church invited the Society of St. Pius X to “enter into the Church” to help it find a solution!

In fact, the simplest and most honest solution is that of the future Benedict XVI who admitted: « there are magisterial decisions which cannot be the final word on a given matter as such but, despite the permanent value of their principles, are chiefly also a signal for pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional policy.  Their kernel remains valid, but the particulars determined by circumstances can stand in need of correction.  In this connection, one will probably call to mind […] the pontifical statements of the last century regarding freedom of religion »9.

Is DH based on a false philosophy?

Yes, DH is based on a personalist philosophy in considering that the common good “chiefly consists in the protection of the rights, and in the performance of the duties, of the human person” (§ 6).

Without speaking of the Masonic origin of the doctrine of the Rights of Man, it is at least paradoxical to define the common good as the protection of the rights of particular persons. The particular good is ordered to the common good, not vice versa.  Personalist philosophy, placing the person above society, is the source of a spirit of protest, egoism, and subversion.

(To be continued)


Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Nine) – The Nine Decrees (decrees 6-9)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Nine) – The Nine Decrees (decrees 6-9)

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued,number 10)

The Nine Decrees (continued)

3. The two Decrees on missionary activity and means of social communication

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

7.  Inter mirifica (IM): the means of social communication.

What sort of charity does Ad Gentes (AG) promote?

Missionary activity is a consequence of the charity that works toward the salvation of souls.  But AG has a false conception of charity:  “Christian charity truly extends to all, without distinction of race, creed, or social condition” (§ 12).  Christian charity certainly extends to all men, but with distinctions.  There is an order in charity: one should first love those who are closest, and especially our brothers in the faith:  “let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” (Gal. 6:10).

What does AG say about ecumenism and religious liberty?

Ecumenism obliges AG, too, should sacrifice to the template:

« The ecumenical spirit should be nurtured in the neophytes, who should take into account that the brethren who believe in Christ are Christ’s disciples, reborn in baptism, sharers with the People of God in very many good things. Insofar as religious conditions allow, ecumenical activity should be furthered in such a way that, excluding any appearance of indifference or confusion on the one hand, or of unhealthy rivalry on the other, Catholics should cooperate in a brotherly spirit with their separated brethren, among to the norms of the Decree on Ecumenism, making before the nations a common profession of faith, insofar as their beliefs are common, in God and in Jesus Christ, and cooperating in social and in technical projects as well as in cultural and religious ones. Let them cooperate especially for the sake of Christ, their common Lord: let His Name be the bond that unites them! This cooperation should be undertaken not only among private persons, but also, subject to approval by the local Ordinary, among churches or ecclesial communities and their works. [§ 15.] »

The content of this paragraph and the reference to the decree UR show that the ecumenism in question here is the false conciliar ecumenism that was condemned in advance by Pius XI in Mortalium animos (6 January 1928).

AG also says: “The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the Faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the Faith by unjust vexations on the part of others.” (§ 13).

This phrase would be well-understood if it did not make a footnote to Dignitatis Humanæ, 2, 4, 10. Thus, one should understand by “worrisome wiles” a slight moral pressure exerted by the public powers who would recognize—as is its right—the Catholic religion as the State religion.

What does Inter Mirifica (IM) say about the “wonders of technology“?

In its first paragraph, IM lists the means of social communication (the press, cinema, radio, television, and other such technologies) as “Among the wonderful technological discoveries which men of talent, especially in the present era, have made with God’s help“. One would have liked a bit less praise for these technologies, rapidly becoming powerful means of moral deterioration.

What does IM say about the right to information?

IM demands a “right to information“, provided that there “be full respect for the laws of morality and for the legitimate rights and dignity of the individual.” Yet, DH lists false religious liberty among the rights of man, and GS—we have seen—teaches errors on the dignity of man and the rights of man. The “right to information” is thus not suitably limited: it does not conform to the doctrine of the Church on the liberty of the press1.

Is is not surprising that in 2015, fifty years after the Council, following the attack against the journal Charlie-Hebdo2, the bishops of France signed a text in favor of “freedom of expression“:

« We are unanimous in the defenses of the values of the Republic, liberty, equality, fraternity, and in particular, the defense of freedom of expression. We commit ourselves to continue this course of sharing, dialogue, and fraternity. »

4. The two Decrees Decrees on the eastern Churches and on ecumenism

8. Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE): the eastern Catholic Churches.

9. Unitatis redintegratio (UR): ecumenism.

Which novelties does the text Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE) contain regarding Eastern Catholic Churches?

This decree claims to enlist the Eastern Catholic Churches (also called “uniate” because they are not schismatic like the Orthodox, but united to Rome) in the false conciliar ecumenism.

Also, this is recommended to them: “The Eastern Churches in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome have a special duty of promoting the unity of all Christians, especially Eastern Christians, in accordance with the principles of the decree, ‘About Ecumenism,’ of this Sacred Council” (§ 24).

What is the teaching of this Decree regarding communicatio in sacris?

It is a pure contradiction endangering the principle of non-contradiction, and also the Catholic faith.

The Decree begins by recalling exactly the ban on communicatio in sacris: “Common participation in worship (communicatio in sacris) which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, of scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law.” (§ 26).

But this just reminder is followed by a “but” where the contrary comes: “On the other hand, pastoral experience shows clearly that, as regards our Eastern brethren…

And without any doctrinal argument, it comes to contradict the posed principle, while specifying that the principles remains posed:

« Without prejudice to the principles noted earlier, Eastern Christians who are in fact separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, if they ask of their own accord and have the right dispositions, may be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. Further, Catholics may ask for these same sacraments from those non-Catholic ministers whose churches possess valid sacraments, as often as necessity or a genuine spiritual benefit recommends such a course and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible. Further, given the same principles, common participation [communicatio in sacris] by Catholics with their Eastern separated brethren in sacred functions, things and places is allowed for a just cause » [§ 27 and 28].

We are in contradiction with the doctrine and practice of the pre-conciliar Church. We refer the readers to Sel de la terre 40, pp. 79 to 81, where the traditional doctrine on communicatio in sacris will be found. Here are some extracts: “It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.” (1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 731, § 2). “One cannot ever ask for, except in the case of necessity, a sacrament from a heretical or schismatic minister; those who contravene this defense will fall under the penalty of excommunication brought against the credentes [those who adhere to the heresy]. In the case of extreme necessity, proximate danger of death, it is only permitted to ask for the necessary sacraments (baptism or absolution or, for lack of absolution, extreme unction). If there is risk of perversion, one must be content with an act of perfect contrition.” (Dictionary of Catholic Theology, article “heresy“, written by A. Michel.)

What is one to think of the Decree Unitatis redintegratio (UR) on ecumenism?

It is one of the worst texts of the Council. It alone would merit a detailed study3.  We will indicate here only the principal errors:

Is the purpose of the Incarnation “the unity of the human race“?

It is known that the most common solution to the question of the motive of the Incarnation is that God incarnated “for our salvation” (Credo of the Mass).

But, until then, no theologian had thought of the motive proposed by the Council, “the unity of the human race“: “What has revealed the love of God among us is that the Father has sent into the world His only-begotten Son, so that, being made man, He might by His redemption give new life to the entire human race and unify it.” (§ 2).

It is true that Our Lord wants to gather his sheep in His fold, but it is necessary, to be a sheep, to begin by believing in Him. Those who refuse to believe cannot participate in this unity.

The unity of the human race” is not purpose of the Incarnation, but the utopian project sought by Freemasonry.

To attain this goal, the Council will contrive new concepts: “imperfect communion“, “full incorporation“, and “elements of Church“.

Is the conception of “imperfect communion” traditional?

But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church […]. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.” (§ 3).

The concept of full or imperfect communion is an invention of Vatican II4.  Either one fulfills the three conditions for belonging to the Church—baptism, faith, submission to the legitimate hierarchy—and one is in communion with it, or a condition is lacking and one is not in communion: “Est est, non non” (Mt. 5:37).

But what is particularly grave is the suggestion that such an imperfect communion allows one to be saved without it being necessary give up heresy or schism.

What is the danger to the Church of a “full incorporation“?

To be “fully incorporated” in the Church, UR tells us, in addition to the three usual conditions, a 4th condition is necessary:  “possessing the Spirit of Christ” (LG § 14)5.  This means that sinners, as well as Protestants (UR 3), are not fully incorporated into the Church.

The danger is formulating a Church with two categories of members: the category of perfect Christians (the fully incorporated “pure“) and that of imperfect Christians not fully incorporated. And as the sacraments are given in certain cases to Protestants and schismatics, why not also give them to sinners?

How does the concept of “elements of Church” introduce a false idea?

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.” (§ 3).

Before Vatican II, one spoke of “remnants“, to designate what remains of the true Church in the communities that are separated from its bosom. This term makes one think of “ruins” and it was judged too negative. Thus it opted for the notion of “elements“, also used in LG, no. 8. But doing this introduced a false idea, suggesting that these elements suffice by themselves to lead one to Christ, without the need to desire belonging to the Church.

Note that this new theology can open the door to a certain recognition of illegitimate unions (concubinage, “trial marriage“, unnatural unions, etc.), as Cardinal Kasper remarked6 and as Le Sel de la terre indicated at the time7.

What is the principal error of this Decree?

The decree tends to destroy the dogma of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation. Besides what we said regarding “imperfect communion” and the “elements of the Church“, there is the assertion that heretical or schismatic sects also rank as “means of salvation” which the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using (§ 3)8.

If one understands this assertion in the sense that the Holy Ghost can use these sects to save their members even when they do not have any desire to leave them, this proposition is heretical, because it is directly opposed to the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation9.  To be saved, the at least implicit desire to belong to the Catholic Church is necessary, i.e., the desire to leave these sects.

If one understands this assertion in the sense that the Holy Ghost uses these sects to give their members the desire to belong to the Catholic Church, it is at the very least unrealistic.

But the worst phrase could be: “the separated Churches and Communities […] have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation“. This is to deny the unity of the divine intention to save by the Church that Jesus founded and not by another. To attribute a divine purpose (“mystery of salvation”) to the action of a sect seems to be a blasphemy again the wisdom of God and the unity of His plan.

What else do you note in this decree?

It inaugurates the era of repentance and suggests that the Catholic Church has pardonable faults for the “separated brethren“: “we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren” (§ 7).

It opens the door to communicatio in sacris: “two main principles governing the practice of such common worship [communicatio]: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace” (§ 8). In practice the second principle will serve to sacrifice the first.

It refuses to employ « polemics » in the relations with “the separated brethren“, suppressing in a stroke of the pen a good part of Tradition.

It introduces the idea that “in Catholic doctrine there exists a ‘hierarchy’ of truths” (§ 11), without recalling that the “last” truth of faith is as necessary as the first for salvation.

§ 12 hopes that “before the whole world let all Christians confess their faith in the trine God“, placing the divine faith (of Catholics) and human faith of heretics on the same level. This same paragraph hopes for the social collaboration of “Christians“, without taking into account the danger of this collaboration and the change on this point with the previous discipline of the Church.

§ 14 suggests that throughout the centuries the Roman See did not exercise primacy, which implies that the particular Eastern Churches are sisters of the Roman Church, and thus they they were not subject to its ordinary jurisdiction, and that today’s schismatic Eastern Churches are the same as those founded by the Apostles, as if the schism did not introduce any break.

§ 15 also claims that the Eastern schismatics unreservedly benefit  from “apostolic succession“, and it recommends “some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority“.

§ 16 claims that certain aspects of revealed mystery have sometimes been better grasped and explained by the (schismatic) Orientals than by Catholics.

§ 19 reduces the difference between the Catholic faith and the Protestant heresy to differences “in the interpretation of revealed truth“.

§ 23 states that the “separated brethren“, thus heretics, have the “faith in Christ“, as if this were systematically the case; that “The daily Christian life of these brethren is nourished by their faith in Christ and strengthened by the grace of Baptism“, whereas this is only true for infants or for heretics in invincible ignorance; and that they have “a true charity“, whereas charity does not exist without supernatural faith.

What judgement do you pass on the entire doctrine of the decree?

The doctrine of UR impressively strays, in its whole as in its details, from Catholic theology on the relations between the Church and other Christian sects, such as it was expressed in the preparatory schemas of the First Vatican Council, in the “Ottaviani” schema of Vatican II, and in papal encyclicals, in particular in Satis Cognitum by Leo XIII (29 June 1896), Mortalium Animos by Pius XI (6 January 1928), and Mystici Corporis by Pius XII (29 June 1943).