Questionable priestly ordinations in the conciliar Church

Questionable priestly ordinations in the conciliar Church

— A letter of Archbishop Lefebvre:

[ Editor’s note:  In this transcription, we have left unchanged the spelling and style found in the handwritten letter of the Archbishop. ]

Ecône, 28 oct. 1988

Very dear Mr. Wilson,

thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.

All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now.  The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.

We are in the time of great apostasy.

We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics.  It is necessary everywhere in the world.

Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!

We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.

I pray for you and your lovely family.

Devotly in Jesus and Mary.

Marcel Lefebvre

 

Handwritten Letter from Arch Lefebvre - necessary to conditionally ordain

Commentary

Archbishop Lefebvre relies on two principal arguments to assert that the new sacraments, especially ordinations, are henceforth questionable:

* the evolution of the rites;

* and the defect in intention.

The new rites of the sacraments promulgated by the conciliar Church, promulgated in the typical editions in Latin, are probably valid 1But that does not prevent numerous sacraments from being invalid in practice, for the two reasons quoted above.

Archbishop Lefebvre said that in his opinion a great number of new masses were invalid – while admitting the validity of the new rite in itself.

Bp Tissier de Mallerais, in his sermon from June 29, 2016 at Econe, spoke as follows concerning the rite of ordination for priests:

“Clearly, we cannot accept this faked new rite of ordination that leaves doubts concerning the validity of numerous ordinations done according to the new riteThus this new rite of ordination is not Catholic.  And so we will of course faithfully continue to transmit the real and valid priesthood by the traditional priestly rite of ordination.”

In an article that appeared in Le Sel de la terre 54 on the subject of the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, after showing that the rite in itself is probably valid, we added:

Due to the generalized disorder, both at the liturgical and dogmatic levels, we can have serious reasons to doubt the validity of certain episcopal ordinations.”

And we quoted the remarks of Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject of the episcopal consecration of Bp Daneels, auxiliary bishop of Brussels:

“Little booklets were published on the occasion of this consecration. For the public prayers, here is what was said and repeated by the crowd:

Be an apostle like Peter and Paul; be an apostle like the patron of this parish; be an apostle like Gandhi; be an apostle like Luther; be an apostle like (Martin) Luther King; be an apostle like Helder Camara; be an apostle like Romero.

Apostle like Luther, but what intention did the bishops have when they consecrated this bishop, Bp. Daneels2?”

“It is frightening…Was this bishop really consecrated?  We can doubt it anyway.  And if that is the intention of the consecrators, it is incomprehensible!  The situation is even more serious than we thought3.”

We could quote numerous examples of sacraments given in the conciliar Church that were certainly invalid:  confirmations given without using holy oils; baptisms where one person pours the water, while another pronounces the words, etc4.

This is why the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in the letter that we have quoted here, appears wise:  because of the particular importance of the sacrament of ordination, it is necessary to conditionally re-ordain the priests who come from the conciliar Church to the Traditional one.

(Taken from “Le Sel de la terre” 98)

Answer to Fr Simoulin SSPX: No practical agreement until there is a doctrinal agreement?

Answer to Fr Simoulin SSPX

“No practical agreement until there is a doctrinal agreement?”

Extracts from an article by Fr Michel Simoulin, SSPX

Published in le Seignadou (France), October 2016, with a few inserted comments inserted by Le Sel de la Terre, doctrinal review of the Dominicans of Avrillé

[Text by Fr Simoulin, in red:] I promised you some objections, and the responses we could make.

Here is the first objection, which is perhaps the only serious one, that of Archbishop Lefebvre’s statements, mainly made after 1988, to the effect that he wished to await the “conversion” of Rome before taking further steps towards reconciliation. This position is usually presented in this way: no practical agreement until there is a doctrinal agreement.

[Comments by Le Sel de la Terre, in black:]   This position was defended not only by Archbishop Lefebvre (firmly and on numerous occasions), but also by the four bishops of the SSPX after Archbishop Lefebvre’s death (1991) up to 2012.   In 2006, the General Chapter of the SSPX pointed it out again in a solemn way. (See the editorial from the fall 2015 issue of Le Sel de la terre: ‘Satan’s masterstroke’, which is also available as an article on this website.)

[Text by Fr Simoulin:] This is true and well-known, but the Archbishop himself recognized that this would take time, much time, and that it would be necessary to wait for Providence to signal the right moment.

Time, much time: well, then, why the rush?  Why not wait peacefully for Providence to signal the right moment?  Pope Francis with Amoris Laetitia, with his remarks on Luther ‘who was not mistaken’, etc, scandalized even conciliar ‘conservatives’.  Is it the right moment?

[Text by Fr S:] And in this he relied entirely upon the superiors of the Society.  He never stopped telling us:   “For me, it’s finished… you have your bishops, your superiors, your seminaries, your priories; I gave you everything I had received… it is now for you to continue without me!”

In 2012, three bishops of the SSPX solemnly warned Bp Fellay about the hazards of committing to a practical agreement. This warning led to the expulsion of one of them a few months later.

[Text by Fr S.] Moreover, and those who were the Archbishop’s first companions should not forget it, beyond his sometimes thunderous statements, even in the most tense moments with Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre always acted and reacted as a servant of the Church and of the Pope and as a son of Rome.  His heart was more Roman than many of ours, and even in his strongest interventions, those who knew him always sensed beneath them a genuine sadness: a sadness like that of Jesus Christ weeping over Jerusalem, but still filled with the desire to save the holy city, sadness for the state of the Church, sadness at having to act against the authorities of the Church, sadness at being neither heard nor understood.

The word “sadness” (italics added) is repeated five times: appeal to sentiment.   But here, it is reason and faith which should guide us.

[Text by Fr S:] He would never have taken the first step towards rupture with Rome, and it was always “conciliar Rome” which took the initiative in the measures of “separation,” which would only end up in separating him a little more from “conciliar Rome” and in pushing him to take refuge ever more in the heart of “Roman Rome!”

The consecrations of 1988 without Rome’s agreement – and even against the pope’s and cardinal Ratzinger’s express intentions –  were indeed an initiative of Archbishop Lefebvre, and resulted de facto in a separation from “conciliar Rome”.

[Text by Fr S:] Roman he was and Roman he remained to his last breath. Romanita is not an empty word, were almost the last words of his Spiritual Journey.

Many passages from the Spiritual Journey are very much opposed to an agreement with Rome before its return to Tradition.  A single example: “The establishment of that ‘conciliar church’ pervaded by the principles of 1789, by the masonic principles is a hell-fired imposture […].  It is therefore the strict duty of every priest and of every believer who wishes to remain Catholic to separate himself from that conciliar church until it finds its way back to the Tradition of the magisterium of the Church and of the Catholic faith.”

[Text by Fr S:] But let us review history briefly.  Firstly the SSPX–which was not founded to oppose the Council or Rome, but rather to give a structure in the Church for priests trained in the seminary of Fribourg-Econe–was recognized and established by and in the “conciliar Church.”

Father Simoulin reviews history his own way.  The expression “the conciliar Church” only came into existence in 1976.  Archbishop Lefebvre immediately said he did not want to be a part of it.  Up to that point, Catholics and conciliars had not been clearly distinguished, which explains why a bishop favorable towards conciliar ideas (Bishop Charrière, a personal friend of Archbishop Lefebvre) could approve a perfectly Catholic society like the SSPX – which surprised Archbishop Lefebvre himself.  But today, no bishop could be found with the courage to do that.

[Text by Fr S:] And there also was his proud response to the editorial of the Abbe de Nantes in which he was incited to break with Rome, in February of 1975.  It is in Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter to the Abbe de Nantes that he told him:  “Know that if a bishop breaks with Rome, it will not be I.  My “Declaration” says it clearly and strongly enough.”  This letter is dated March 19, 1975!

That letter dates from before the Roman condemnations.  Bishop Lefebvre did not want to initiate a rupture with Rome, as Abbé de Nantes1 asked of him, but Bishop Lefebvre did not submit to the dictates of this “neo-Protestant Rome” and, if he accepted the rupture, it was in order to remain faithful to “eternal Rome”.

[Text by Fr S:] The independent bishops of the “Catholic Church” are free to carry out this rupture, but let them not claim a so-called fidelity to the thought of Archbishop Lefebvre for this reason, and let them stop making us laugh sourly by talking of “the treason of the current authorities of the SSPX towards the thought and work of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre”.

Father Simoulin does not name the person he is taking to task here; it is Bishop Faure, who founded a sacerdotal Society last August 22nd, to allow the seminarians in his care to join a structure, just as Archbishop Lefebvre had done in 1970.  It is not a rupture.  Just like the consecrations of 1988, it is a measure dictated by a state of emergency:  the training of seminarians according to the spirit of the Church, without compromising with the errors of modernist Rome.

To avoid making Father Simoulin laugh sourly, we will rather speak of “the recklessness” of the SSPX’s authorities who are jeopardizing Archbishop Lefebvre’s work in moving closer to modernist Rome.

[Text by Fr S:] What did our superiors accept of the things Archbishop Lefebvre refused: the New Mass?  The conciliar ideas?  Religious liberty?

The answer is simple, and Father Simoulin knows it, since he has just mentioned it:  the superiors of the SSPX have accepted the possibility of a practical agreement – of normalization – with Pope Francis’  Rome which has not obviously not returned to Tradition, and they are even working to obtain this recognition.  Bishop Fellay’s text reproduced above and Father Schmidberger’s in Le Sel de la Terre 96 make it clear.

[Text by Fr S:] Instead of criticizing and condemning Bishop Fellay, let these men make positive and constructive suggestions.  What do they suggest as a solution?  Nothing but denial and rupture

The solution offered is to stick to the line set out by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, which is what the SSPX did until  2012:  no agreement with Rome as long as it keeps spreading modernism.

[Text by Fr S:] And there are also these words of the Archbishop to the future bishops:   ”I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all churches, in the Catholic faith of all time.”

In the same letter, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote: “I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.”  Could it be said that Pope Francis is “perfectly Catholic”?

[Text by Fr S:] And we can conclude with the words of the Archbishop himself, faithful to his first position until the end, from his address to the deacons on retreat in Montalenghe in June 1989, and therefore after the episcopal consecrations.  He gave them one last time the meaning of the declaration of 1974 [November 21]:   “I think that we need nonetheless, a link with Rome…”

The meaning of his words is suggested by the context:  Archbishop Lefebvre was sounding a warning against sedevacantism.  The “link with Rome” that he talks about consists simply in recognizing the current pope as validly elected.  It is not a question of asking for a canonical recognition.

In the conference that he gave shortly after the priestly retreat at Écône, Archbishop Lefebvre said:

“As to the situation of Tradition and Rome, it remains practically unchanged.  We can see it is more and more so.  The Vatican is committed to maintaining the Council above all, which is nothing but a transposition of the spirit of the Revolution in the Church.  This spirit they want to maintain at all cost, and all the concessions they can make, to the left, to the right, the appointments of seemingly traditional bishops, these are political and diplomatic means to be able to keep disseminating the spirit of the Council and the revolutionary spirit, certainly so.  Indeed it was the devil’s masterstroke to succeed in using the highest-ranking members of the Church to spread the Revolution’s ideasClearly, that has not changed.  [Archbishop Lefebvre then gives a few examples here, notably the appointment of Kasper, ‘a formal heretic’, as a bishop, with Cardinal Ratzinger’s blessing.]  As long as that spirit prevails in Rome, that spirit of ecumenism, liberalism, modernism, we cannot hope for anything.  So let us wait, pray, and work.  God will decide, He knows better than we do, (He) who creates all things, He is the almighty, He can change the situation in no time, let us trust in God.  But is impossible, absolutely impossible, today, to trust in the Roman authorities in any way.”

We believe that the situation is still the same and that Archbishop Lefebvre’s advice, (viz. “let us wait, pray, and work”) is still relevant.


For, or against the “agreements”?

For, or against the “agreements”?

A text published in Le Sel de la terre 98

Father Schmidberger, former Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X wrote arguments . in favour of the “ normalisation “ of the Society.  He was chosen by the mother house to preach two priestly retreats to the French speaking priests of the Society (in August and September) at the priory of Le Pointet (France) and in Ecône, which no doubt allowed him to advance his ideas.

Elsewhere the Superior General has broken his silence in order to argue for the structure proposed to the Society of St. Pius X ( see the text reproduced below).

Father Michel Simoulin has also defended the advantages of the “agreement”.

So, is there nobody against?  There is opposition of course.  But the opposition is discreet and is expressed privately, as if it were forbidden today, in the SSPX, to defend publicly the position which was its official position until 2012: ”no practical agreement before the conversion of the Roman authorities”.

The “super diocese” offered to the SSPX by a Pope who “wants the good of Tradition”

By Christian Lassale

This article was published by MCI-L’hebdomadaire de medias- catholique. Info n. 33 of the 8 September 2016. P.6-7

Umpteenth announcement and no real new development in the relations between Rome and the SSPX founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and led until 2018 by the Swiss Bishop Bernard Fellay

In a conference given in English on 24 August 2016, in Australia, the current Superior General of the SSPX explained to the faithful the nature of the personal prelature proposed by Rome to the SSPX.  Mgr. Fellay used the occasion of this canonical explanation to give his opinion on the Roman proposal:

(….)Rome is offering us a new body. At the head a bishop. This bishop chosen by the Pope from three names which are presented by the Society and taken from the Society. This bishop will have authority over the priests, over the religious who want to be members and over the faithful. The faithful who will belong to this body will have the strict right to receive all the sacraments from the priests of the society – all the sacraments, marriage included. This bishop will have the right to have schools, seminaries, ordinations, even to make new religious congregations and to accept inside others who would like to join.

It is something like a super-diocese, autonomous from the local bishops.  In other words for you no change from what you have now.  The only thing is it will be with the recognition that you are Catholics.

You can imagine that that will create a lot of conflicts with the local bishops – you can easily imagine that. So we have to remain prudent, but in itself you cannot imagine anything better than what is offered there and such a thing you cannot think it is a trap. It is not a trap and if somebody offers something like that it can only be because he wishes us well.  He wants the good of Tradition and for Tradition to spread in the Church. It is impossible to think that such a thing could be invented by our enemies. The enemies have many other ways to crush us but not that one.

You may say: if that is the thing, why don’t you accept? Because I want to be sure that it is true. I don’t have the right to live in a dream and so I must check each aspect (…) [End of quotation]

From a canonical point of view, there is nothing new under the sun, the above description being that of a personal prelature with extended powers such as Mgr. Guido Pozzo has already suggested (since 2012). It is moreover this possibility which was rejected by a majority of major superiors meeting in a hotel near Ecône at the end of June 2016.

The novelty of the words of Mgr. Fellay, if there is one, is found in the syllogism which completes the exposé. It is this:

impossible that such a thing could be invented by our enemies

- so it can only be a question of friends of Tradition, and :

… if somebody offers something like that, it can only be because he wishes us well.  He wants the good of Tradition and for Tradition to spread in the Church.

As a result, such a proposal cannot be but accepted, if it proves true.

In such an argument, the Tradition of the Church seems to become identified with the SSPX, since wishing well to the latter is to wish well to Tradition, notwithstanding the dramatic blows which Rome may inflict on Tradition elsewhere.  The reality in the Church seems as if dissipated by these good intentions with which present day Rome seems to adorn itself.

Moreover, these good intentions, even if supposed to be completely sincere, are they enough in themselves to necessitate the acceptance of a canonical agreement in the present conditions of the Church?  The benevolent intention is in no way sufficient; the propriety of the act still requires that it be, by its very nature, good. 

Now how can one envisage today a concrete dependence of the SSPX on Rome, even though the highest holders of ecclesiastical authority, with the Pope in front, are the destroyers of the Church?

Living in a state of concrete dependence with regards to an authority requires one to follow the same goal, the inferior putting himself at the service of the superior in order attain itThe least that one can say, alas, is that modernist Rome does not pursue the same goal as the Church of all time or of the SSPX.  Without this unity of purpose, and thus of faith, any practical agreement will prove most perilous for the SSPX.  This is doubtless what the general chapter of 2006 meant when it said: “no practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement”.

(End of the reproduction of the article by Christian Lassale)

Commentary by “ Sel de la Terre”:

One can add to these remarks that Rome is not giving to the superior of the “super-diocese” the ability to designate and consecrate bishops.  So it is obvious that the only bishops who will be able to succeed those bishops chosen by Mgr. Lefebvre will be those having the profile desired by “ Rome “.

The Rights of Truth, the “non-rights” of Error

The Rights of Truth, the “non-rights” of Error

[The report of R. P. Philippe C. S. S. R. November 30, 1922 to the Congress of the Apostolic League of Nations, which took place in Paris, and appeared in “La Documentation Catholique” of 24 March, 1923: No. 191]

If there is such a thing as a fundamental truth, it is certainly that of the rights of Truth and the non-rights of error.  It is astonishing that such a subject must even be dealt with, but the intellectual decadence of our times has reached the point that we no longer even wish to acknowledge Truth, but are willing to convince ourselves that Truth doesn’t even exist.  What is said about Truth must also be said of the authority which is based on the truth of the existence of the Supreme Being upon Whom we all depend.

By banishing in one fell swoop Truth and the authority of this Truth, the enemies of Jesus Christ and His Holy Church overthrow, upturn and destroy from top to bottom, not only Christian Order, but all order, be it simply natural, civil, familial, religious or any other.

Order based on nothingness cannot be sustained.  That is why we establish at one and the same time both the rights of Truth and the injustice of error.

We will not get involved here in overly speculative considerations.  Rather, we will limit ourselves to reproducing the simple facts of philosophy and theology.


1. Truth is the conformity of the intellect with the object

St. Thomas Aquinas concisely states the following: Veritas invenitur in intellectu secundum quod apprehendit rem ut est, et in re, secundum quod habet esse conformabile intellectui (Summa Theologica, I, q. 16, art. 5) : truth is in the intellect insofar as it grasps the object as it is.  Truth is in the object itself, insofar as being (that is, this object) can be intellectually reproduced.  In other words, for the intellect to possess the truth of an object (or to be true) that object must first exist, then the intellect must have perceived it just as it is, and intellectually reproduce it thus.  That is why St. Thomas says elsewhere : unumquodque inquantum habet de esse, tantum est cognoscibile (ibid. art. 3) for a thing to be known, it must exist, and can be known only insofar as it exists.

For Truth to exist in the intellect, it is therefore necessary for the intellect to reproduce intellectually (or by means of an intellectual image, if one prefers) objective reality in so far as it exists.  The latter is itself insofar as it reproduces the eternal concept of God who created it.  That is why St. Thomas defines Truth as follows:  Adaequatio rei et intellectus (ibid. art. 1), meaning by this that, in order to be true, the created object must correspond to the concept of the Divine Intellect and that the human intellect which possesses the Truth only possesses it insofar as it is intellectually in conformity with the object itself.

2. The object has the right to be known by the intellect precisely as it [i.e. the object] is

To assert that Truth alone has rights is to declare that the intellect, which is made to possess Truth, has the right not to be led into error.  It is to say, above all else, that the object which is known has the right not to be known other than as it actually is, as well as the right to be known just as it is.

The weakness of the human intellect can be such that it does not conceive the essence of a being in all of its perfection.  It remains no less a fact that whatever the intellect does in fact conceive must be in conformity with what is.

3. In error, nothingness takes the place of the object

What happens in the contrary situation when the intellect conceives, not in conformity with that which is, but with that which is not?  Its intellectual concept does not correspond to any existing reality, or, in the case of a partial error, it corresponds only partially to what that reality actually is.  As for the other part, it corresponds to nothing which is.

Who does not see the conclusion which must be immediately drawn from this?  An intellectual concept which does not correspond to any objective reality corresponds to nothing; that is to say, for it, nothingness has taken the place of the object.

4. Nothingness, therefore error, has no rights

Thus it is an obvious truth that nothingness (or non-being) cannot have rights, because it does not exist.

An intellectual concept which corresponds to no reality whatsoever cannot be the reproduction of a true reality.  Therefore, corresponding to nothingness (which has no rights), it participates in the non-rights of nothingness.

Thus, if the man whose intellect created these fictions and errors wishes to attribute to them rights which they cannot have, then these rights are the most fundamentally unjust that can possibly be.

5. To build on nothingness or error is disorder

What folly, then, to construct a life on nothingness! For this is what necessarily happens when, instead of taking Truth as the principle of this life, we choose error.  With nothingness as a guiding principle for all our acts, for all our feelings, for all our thoughts, what can there be that is true, just or well-founded in our lives?  Nothing.

Furthermore, if error is at the basis of social order, nothingness is the guiding principle of society, of governments, of the constitutions of peoples, of legislation and of everything else.  Let us say it again : what can be built on this?  What can be built on nothingness?  In a social order thus conceived, there can be neither Truth nor Justice nor Order.

Disorder is the inevitable result.

6. This is proven by experience

To better understand this phenomenon, let us see what practically remains as a guiding principle in both individual and social life wherever objective truth has disappeared :

* In the individual order, there remains only individual thought, captive to all of its fantasies.

* In the social order, there remains only collective thought, subject to every whim of the majority.

And when we have swept Truth aside, we have suppressed the Supreme Being who is the great guiding Truth of peoples and individuals.  When God has disappeared from the council of consciences and nations, when there are no more sanctions or responsibilities before the Eternal One, what is left to collective and individual human thought?  Logically, nothing.  In reality, though, in spite of everything, in spite of human fantasies and whims, there remain Eternal Truth and Eternal Justice which crush beneath all their weight those who, turning toward them, say: “You do not exist.”

7. Divine Truth always takes back its Rights

God proclaims these Rights and causes them to be respected by His Justice.

Oh Divine Truth!  It takes back its Rights – Rights which are marked with the seal of Infinity, with the seal of Eternity.  This God Whom man (in his folly) has desired to consign to nothingness in order to have nothingness as the principle of his life, is Creator.  Everything has been made by Him in the infinite splendour of His Beauty.  He reiterates all the conditions of Truth.  Furthermore, to the rights which He Himself has given to all Truth, He adds those with which He alone can be endowed because He alone is infinite, He alone is Creator.

How, then, can those who depend essentially upon Him rise up against Him and His Rights?  It is not astonishing that Eternal Truth which has been dumped on the scrap heap of nothingness surrounds itself with all the rigours of Justice in order to strike back.  Justice is the avenger of its Sister, Truth.

8. Divine Truth manifests itself in Christ

The Infinite goes even farther, so to speak.  God destines this creature for whom He has created Truth (in a word, this human being) to eternal happiness.  In order to lead him to this supreme end, He will become incarnate in the Person of His Word.  He will appear in this world, and, there again, He will manifest Himself as the Truth:  Ego sum Veritas!   Veritas et gratia per Jesum Christum factum est.   It is Truth which is tasked to lead man to his destiny, and see, therefore, what was required for this Truth to be realized in these conditions by Christ: nothing less than the Passion and Death of Christ.  This all-loving Master paid a great price for It, but after all It belongs to Him, It is identified with Him.  Behold this Truth, which is Christ and which has all the Rights of Christ, is launched into the world, bolstered by God’s own Authority.  It must enlighten consciences.  It must guide the social order.  Society must be impregnated with Christ because man, both as a citizen and as an individual, is a creature of God whose final end must be God and infinite beatitude.

9. God strikes those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ and His Church

What homage does man render, what homage does the citizen render, what homage do governments render to the Rights of Truth, to the Supreme Rights of God, to the Rights of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate?

Let us repeat it again: in order to establish nothingness (and consequently disorder in society and confusion among peoples) all the more securely as the guiding principle of peoples, they consign to this nothingness, with all the power their thought can muster, God and His Christ and the institution which continues Christ on earth: the Church.

Is it surprising then that God, seeing Himself despised in the very Truth which He has created, despised in Himself and in His Christ, is it surprising that He chastises peoples with the most dreadful scourges?  War and famine are minor things.  Confusion, upheavals in the political and economic order are a mild manifestation of the terrors which Divine Justice reserves for those who trample His Truth underfoot.

Let us endeavour to understand all this.  Especially let those to whom God has given the responsibility of governing society endeavour to penetrate themselves with these profound teachings and introduce them into the practical working-out of the social order for the good of humanity.  If this is done, both peoples and humanity will be saved.

Saint Thomas Aquinas in today’s combat for the faith

Saint Thomas Aquinas in today’s combat for the faith


A Sermon given in the Dominican Monastery of Avrillé (France)

“Thomas Aquinas was a light placed by Me over the Mystical Body of the Church in order to disperse the darkness of error.” 1

1. Saint Thomas, celestial patron of Catholic studies

On the feast of Saint Dominic, on August 4, 1880, and after having consulted the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Pope Leo III published the Brief, Cum hoc sit, designating St. Thomas the patron of universities, academies, Catholic colleges and schools. The feast was fixed on the 13th of November.2

The motives justifying the patronage of Saint Thomas for Catholic studies

This decision of the Pope, designating Saint Thomas patron of Catholic studies came immediately after his encyclical Aeterni Patris, dealing with the restoration of Catholic philosophy according to the principles of Saint Thomas Aquinas, written one year before, on August 4, 1879.  This patronage should have been its crowning point, and Leo XIII assigned three reasons for it.    Let us quote the Pope:

  1. The doctrine of Saint Thomas is so vast that it embraces, like an ocean, the entire wisdom of Antiquity.  Everything said in the past that was true, everything that was wisely discussed by the pagan philosophers and by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as well as those superior individuals who existed before him; not only did he completely understand it, but he developed, completed and classified it with such an insight, with such methodical precision and with such a precise terminology, that he seems to have only left to his followers the ability to imitate him, while at the same time taking away their possibility of equaling him!”
  2. “There is yet a more important matter to consider: it is that his doctrine being formed and armed with principles containing a vast breadth of application corresponds to the necessities not only of one historical period but rather of all times and periods of history and is therefore very well suited to conquer the continually re-emerging errors.  Sustaining itself by its own strength, it remains invincible and causes a profound fear to its adversaries.  The perfect agreement between faith and reason [in the works of St. Thomas] must not be neglected, especially in regards to the judgment of Catholics.”
  3. “Finally, the Angelic Doctor, though great because of his doctrine, is no less great because of his virtue and holiness.  Consequently virtue is the best preparation for the work of the mind and the acquisition of knowledge; those who neglect virtue falsely imagine having acquired a solid and fruitful knowledge because ‘Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins’ (Wisdom 1:4).”

Furthermore, Pope Pius XI dedicated a very beautiful encyclical; Studiorum Ducem3, in order to demonstrate the link between ecclesiastical studies and holiness as exemplified by Saint Thomas.

Saint Thomas enjoyed a wisdom proportioned to his sanctity; furthermore he enjoyed a superior degree of sanctity which was especially true from the moment when the Angels bound his loins with the cincture of chastity.  The enlightenment of the intellect is, indeed, the special fruit of chastity while the result of impurity is to darken the mind.  Saint Thomas was so free from the fires of concupiscence that he was able to enjoy an understanding of divine things similar to that of the Angels who do not have a body.  That is why he is called the Angelic Doctor.

Saint Thomas is the fruit of the Dominican Order

At the same time, St. Thomas must not be separated from the religious order to which he belonged.  It was the soil of the Order of Preachers where he was allowed to show his true worth.  The necessary balance between the practice of the vows of religion, monastic observances, the choral singing of the divine office, and the contemplative study ordered to preaching for the salvation of souls: it is this entire wonderful ensemble that permitted him to develop his Angelic doctrine.  But, since a religious acts only out of obedience, Saint Thomas’ superiors must also be mentioned:

“Must we not acknowledge that they directed him as perfectly as possible in his scientific vocation?   For he was a superior intellect, a genius who during his period of development was not inhibited by his own brethren.   This is a

phenomenon rare enough throughout history even in Religious Orders to deserve to be mentioned and held up as an example.” 4

The Masters General under whose direction he lived his religious life5, and the great saint, Albert-the-Great (1206-1280) who directed him at Cologne are a few superiors of Saint Thomas who must be honored.

We can certainly claim that Saint Thomas is the most beautiful flower, the most beautiful fruit of the Order of Saint Dominic:  the Order whose mission in the Church is to spread the light of truth and combat error in order to save souls.

2. Saint Thomas Aquinas in today’s combat for the faith

Therefore, it is clear from all that has been said how important Saint Thomas is in the contemporary battle for the Faith.  Let us quote Archbishop Lefebvre:

“We do not have the right to contradict the spirit of the Church which has always relied on Saint Thomas throughout its history.  God, Himself, raised up this admirable Doctor and the Church and the Popes have confirmed it, always proclaiming the power of Saint Thomas in rejecting error and heresy.  Since our contemporary age is one replete with heresy, error and paganism, we do not have the right to neglect papal directives. […]  It is very unfortunate that in today’s Roman Universities every possible and imaginable theory is floated without any correction from the authorities.  This is unfortunately due to the infiltration of ecumenism into philosophy as well as the idea of the equality of every theory.  Thomism is considered like everything else – relative – it was a system that was good during a certain period of time but, now we need something else more suited to the needs of the time.  (Archbishop Lefebvre)”6

Study

Saint Thomas is the remedy for the malicious illness of our time – which is Modernism

None other than Saint Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi, written on the 8th of September, 1907, declares that the primary remediation for Modernism is the study of the philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas:

“Concerning the question of studies, We wish and order that Scholastic philosophy form the basis for the Sacred Studies. […] And when we prescribe Scholastic philosophy, We want to make it clear the We especially mean the philosophy left us by the Angelic Doctor. This is of paramount importance.”

Saint Pius X will again clarify his thought in his Motu Proprio Doctoris Angelici of June 29, 1914, concerning the study of the doctrine of Saint Thomas Aquinas:

“It happened that since We said that the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas especially had to be followed without indicating that it had to be exclusively followed, a number of teachers convinced themselves that they were obeying Our desire, or at the very least, that it was not contradictory if they were to adopt indiscriminately what other scholastics taught about philosophy, even though it was directly in opposition to the principles of Saint Thomas.   But in doing this they were greatly deceived.  When we gave Our seminarians Saint Thomas as the sole leader of Scholastic Philosophy, it goes without saying, that we were talking especially about his principles upon which, as on its foundation, this philosophy rests. […] It is certainly not difficult to understand that if the doctrine of some author or some saint was ever recommended by Us or by Our predecessors with particular enthusiasm, […] it is not difficult to understand that they were recommended in so far as they were in agreement with the principles of Thomas Aquinas or at least they did not oppose his principles in the very least.”

Again, it is Saint Pius X who gives the reason for this:

We wanted to state to all those dedicated to teaching philosophy and sacred theology to be alerted that if they alienated themselves from Thomas Aquinas, in the slightest degree, especially in matters of metaphysics they would experience a tragic loss.”
 

Furthermore, the Church had taken precise measures concerning this matter.  The 1917 Code of Canon Law obliges seminary professors, as well as their students, to “adhere both in philosophy and theology to the method, doctrine and principles of Saint Thomas.” (C. 1366 # 2).  The Dominican Constitution even required professors, the Master of novices and the brothers during their course of study to take an oath to maintain that doctrine.   The doctrine of Saint Thomas is the Church’s doctrine, and the Church is suspicious of anyone straying from it.

The shipwreck of the Conciliar Church

Alienated from the Tradition of the Church, the intellect has no point of reference; it just wanders around (or it loses its way).  This is precisely the spectacle given by the Conciliar Church.

The new Code of Canon Law issued in 1983, does not even explicitly mention Saint Thomas when it comes to philosophical studies in the seminaries!   It only says:

“The philosophical formation ought to always relate to Tradition while at the same time keeping aware of on going philosophical research” (C. 251).

One cannot be more vague.

Let us also quote the incredible declaration of Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

“I had difficulty in understanding Saint Thomas Aquinas whose crystalline logic appeared much too enclosed on itself, too impersonal and too stereotyped.”7

At any other time in history, he would not have been ordained a priest.  And in our times, he became the Pope!

One must read the text of Saint Thomas

Following the thought of Saint Pius X we readily see that he insists on reading the text of Saint Thomas itself:

“It is absolutely necessary to return to the ancient custom which, should have never been abandoned, that there be courses taught on the Summa Theologica itself, for the obvious reason that this highly reasoned book renders the Solemn Decrees of the teaching Church and its Acts that naturally follow more easily intelligible.  Because in the wake of the most blessed saintly Doctor, the Church has never held a Council in which he himself were not present with all the richness of his doctrine.  It daily becomes clearer and the experience of so many centuries has made it known, how true the affirmation of Our predecessor John XXII8is right on: [Thomas] enlightened the Church more clearly than all the Doctors, and, in his books, man profits more in one year than if he spent his entire life span studying all the others.”

In addition to the necessity of reading the text of St. Thomas itself, two cogent things should be retained:

  • The Second Vatican Council is the only council which did not rely on the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor; hence the disaster that flows from this omission.
  • Saint Pius X links the study of St. Thomas, in our times, to none other than the Acts of the Holy See.  This is something that was sadly lacking to the Thomists in our times.  Leaning on the principles of the Angelic Doctor, the Popes – up to Pius XII included – assiduously studied modern errors and condemned them.  These lessons were too often ignored and the lack of knowledge of the pontifical texts is an important cause for the lack of reaction against these errors in the Church:  hence their triumph on the occasion of Vatican II.

That is why Archbishop Lefebvre, in order “to transmit in its entire doctrinal purity, as well as in all his missionary charity, just as Our Lord transmitted it to His Apostles as also the Roman Church transmitted it up until the middle of the XXth century,”9 inserted in the first year course on spirituality for the seminarians, courses on the Acts of the Magisterium concerning modern errors which he himself gave in the beginning10.

Preaching

The study of the doctrine of St. Thomas, in itself, ought to be the principal inspiration for preaching for priests.  It is very important to nourish the souls with this doctrine in order to sustain their contemplation and love of God.

Saint Thomas himself, as a true son of Saint Dominic, had consecrated himself to the salvation of souls.  Furthermore, it is Thomas himself who developed the logo for the Order of Preachers: “Contemplari, et contemplate aliis tradere,”:  to contemplate and transmit to others that which you have contemplated.

It would be a grave error and detriment for the faithful to think that Saint Thomas is only reserved for priestsIt would also be wrong to think that, for the faithful, it is only necessary to give moral exhortations or, what is worse, considerations that appeal only to feelings.

Let us quote again the Archbishop:

Let us not think that Saint Thomas is too much for the faithful and that he is distant from their faith, for this is not true and damaging to the faithful.  The philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas are truth.  Therefore let us not say that the truth explained in all its simplicity, and clarity, in addition to its profound logic, cannot be understood by the faithful.  That would be condescension on our part.  This would amount to abandoning and despairing of communicating to the faithful – a profound tragedy.  It goes without saying that one must know how to express and expose these admirable principles.”11

Father Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. tells of having known a little lay sister, who was a contemplative, and who did not possess any human culture to speak of but who had been interiorly enlightened by interior trials:

“She had discovered among the saints two great friends: Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Albert the Great.  In spite of the fact that she lacked any philosophical or theological culture, she, nevertheless, loved to read how these saints prayed and furthermore, addressed them saying: “They are great Doctors of the Church and they enlighten the souls of those who entreat them for help.”  As a matter of fact, Father Garrigou-Lagrange continues to explain that it was St. Thomas who showed her where the obscure tunnel she was crossing would lead her!  And Saint Thomas enlightened many souls, as he had done to the little lay sister, if these poor souls appealed to him.”12

It was well known at Econe, that Msgr. Lefebvre came for a spiritual conference with a single volume of Saint Thomas, and he gave a commentary on an article of the Summa.  These formed the most pleasing lectures experienced by the Seminarians, and especially by the brothers!

It was not something rare, at the Monastery of Avrille, to be surprised to find our (now deceased) brother Marie-Joseph O.P. plunged into one of these same volumes.  He was particularly in love with the treatise on charity.

Conclusion

Let us ask of Our Lord what the Church makes us specially ask for in the Collect and the Postcommunion for the feast of Saint Thomas:

Da nobis et quae docuit, intellectu conspicere:

give us the grace to contemplate what he taught – that is, to nourish ourselves with his doctrine,

et quae egit imitatione complere; ut actus exterius piae operationis excrescent:

give us the grace to resemble him, in order that there may be an increase in our good works,

knowing that the first work of spiritual mercy consists in teaching souls the truth:

Docere ignorantes.


A Major Event in Tradition

A Major Event in Tradition

A text available on gloria.tv aptly analyses certain consequences of the granting of an ordinary jurisdiction to the Society of St. Pius X by Pope Francis for the duration of the “Holy Year”.   We quote here some extracts from it.

 

5)  The forms of the concession are atypical:  the jurisdiction is awarded to priests of the Society according to an unusual procedure, moreover it is very limited and temporary in nature.  The act of September 1st 2015 is nevertheless a “canonical normalization” in the sense of the decision of the Chapter of July 2012, which did not make any distinctions between partial, complete, unilateral, consensual, temporary or final normalization etc…    Furthermore, the six “preconditions” imposed by this Chapter no longer have any reason to exist now that the papal measure has been accepted by the Superior General.

 

6)  On analysis, this “mini-normalization” ( two sacraments for one year) appears to be a first experiment in co-existence between the Society and its “conciliar” environment, and a test of its docility towards the holders of legitimate power in the Church. […]

 

7)  Last autumn, the risks of this process could not have eluded the General Council of Menzingen, thus making even more imperative the meeting of the Chapter foreseen in the communiqué of July 14th 2012.   And yet the Superior General did not convene this extraordinary Chapter.   So the procedure for authorization instituted by the supreme authority of the Society with the aim of its protection was not applied: and the reason for this omission has not been given.

 

8)  Having accepted alone and without the authorization of the Chapter this preliminary act of the Pope, will Mgr. Fellay be able to oppose the complementary normalization measures already envisaged  (cf. his sermon at the French pilgrimage of Le Puy on April 10th, 2016) or a more complete canonical recognition?   Will he be able to refuse to ratify the “fundamental accord” on “the value of the Council”, as the pope requires for the erection of a personal prelature for the Society (cf. interview in the French newspaper La Croix of May 16th).   On considering the evolution of events, we are not able to affirm this.

 

9)   The desire to remedy a canonical situation deemed “irregular” has led the Society to defer endlessly decisive confrontation on doctrine.   Not having demanded Rome’s renunciation of conciliar errors before consenting to receive the ordinary jurisdiction granted by the act of September 1st, the Society has fallen into a trap:  it will not be able to invoke the state of necessity and take, if necessary, without the agreement of the authorities, the measures needed to safeguard the faith and the priesthood, put in danger by Vatican II and its reforms.

The Religion of Man

The Religion of Man

Since the Council there has been a new Church

By Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer

Diocesan bulletin, April 1972

Because of the difficulty of the undertaking, or be it by a compromise with the spirit of the times, the fact is:

In the implementation of the plan outlined by Vatican II, in most of the Catholic world, the attempt to adapt has gone beyond simply a means of expression more in conformity with the mentality of the day.

It has even touched the essence of Revelation itself.  They do not preoccupy themselves with explaining revealed Truth in such a way as to enable man to understand it more easily; rather their goal, by using ambiguous and flowery language, is to put forward a new Church to man’s tastes formed according to the maxims of the modern world.

With that, they now spread, more or less everywhere, the idea that the Church must undergo a radical change in its morality, in its liturgy, and even in its doctrine.  In what has been written and done in Catholic milieu since the [Vatican II] Council, the thesis has been spread that the Traditional Church, such as it existed until Vatican II, is no longer adequate for the needs of modern times, so that it must be completely transformed.

A profound observation on what has taken place in Catholic circles leads to the conviction that, truly, since the Council there is a new Church that is essentially distinct from the one we knew prior to the Council, as the unique Church of Christ.  Indeed, human dignity is now exalted as an absolute and untouchable principle to whose rights truth and good must submit.

A similar idea launches the Religion of man.  It makes us forget Christian austerity and the beatitude of Heaven.

As for morality, the same principle causes us to forget about Christian asceticism, and it is full of an indulgence for pleasure, even sensual pleasure, because it is on earth that man must find his fulfillment.

As for family and married life, the Religion of man celebrates love and puts pleasure over duty, thus justifying contraception, weakening opposition to divorce, and favoring homosexuality and co-education, without a fear of the ensuing moral disorders, inherent in this attitude as the consequences of original sin.

In public life, the Religion of man does not understand hierarchy, and defends the egalitarianism proper to Marxist ideology (and which is contrary to both natural and revealed teaching) which assures the existence of a social order which nature itself demands.

In the field of religion, the same principle encourages, for the benefit of man, an ecumenism which reconciles all religions and wishes to establish a church that resembles a society of social assistance, and renders the sacred unintelligible, because it can only be understood in a society based on hierarchy.

Whence this excessive preoccupation with the promotion of clergy, whose celibacy is now considered to be absurd, along with the restraint of a priestly life which is intimately tied to the character of a consecrated person wholly devoted to the service of the altar.

In the liturgy, the priest is reduced to a simple representative of the people.  The changes are such and so numerous that the liturgy ceases to represent, suitably, in the eyes of the faithful, the image of the Spouse of the Lamb, one, holy and immaculate.

It is evident that the relaxation of morals as well as the liturgical breakdown cannot co-exist with the immutability of dogma.  In reality, these changes indicate already alterations in the concept of revealed truths.  A reading of the new theologians, understood spokesmen of the Council, demonstrates how, in fact, in certain Catholic milieu, the words used to state the mysteries of the Faith imply concepts completely different from those of traditional theology.

Friends and Benefactors Letter number 22, May 2016 – Consoling Our Lord

Letter from the Dominicans of Avrillé

No. 22: May 2016

clip_image002

Chrismal Mass on Holy Thursday

Consoling Our Lord

“And I looked for one that would grieve with me, but there was none: and for one that would console me, and I found none”. In the present time of the Church’s Passion, Our Lord renews this complaint from Psalm 68 (verse 21).  However, how can Our Lord, Who is gloriously reigning in Heaven, be sad and ask for consolers?

Saint Thomas Aquinas provides the answer when he explains the following expression of Saint Paul: “Sadden not the Holy Ghost” (Eph. 4: 30):

“How can this be said, since the Holy Ghost, being God Himself, cannot possess any passion (that is, emotion) or suffer sadness?  Answer: The Holy Ghost is “saddened” when the person in whom He dwells is afflicted, according to the words of Our Lord: “He who despises you, despises Me” (Luke 10:16).  Also, one can say that it is a metaphorical expression, as when one speaks of God’s “anger” in order to designate His avenging justice, which [for God] is not a passion (as it is in us), but a virtue.  Thus, it is said that God is saddened, when He withdraws from the sinner, as a saddened man takes leave of the person who has afflicted him.  As a result, the expression “sadden not the Holy Ghost” signifies: do not drive Him out of your soul by sin.”

Accordingly, we can say that Our Lord Jesus Christ is saddened insofar as the members of His Mystical Body are afflicted, as is presently the case of so many Catholics being persecuted under Islamic, Communist, and Hindu regimes.

Secondly, Our Divine Lord is saddened in the sense that the sins of men cause Him to turn away.  In the prayer of the Act of Contrition, do we not say that sin offends God, or displeases Him?  It is a way of saying that God acts toward the sinner in the same manner as someone who, upon receiving an offense, suffers grief and separates from the person who has given the offense.

Furthermore, Father Garrigou-Lagrange explains:

“If this is true of God considered in His Divine and purely spiritual nature, it is even truer when speaking of Christ’s holy soul […]:  His soul in fact is capable of feeling, and therefore Jesus is truly sensitive to the love which is due to Him, but which many refuse to give.”  [Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, in the preface to Élévations sur la prière au Cœur Eucharistique de Jésus – Elevations on the Prayer to the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus.]

Thus, because Our Lord Jesus Christ is “the Word made flesh” (something which cannot be said of the Father or the Holy Ghost), there is a third reason for His sadness:  while He was on earth, particularly during His agony in the Garden of Olives, Our Lord experienced a veritable sorrow:  “My soul is sorrowful even unto death (Mt 26:38)”.  Now, Our Lord was grieved by the sins of all men, including those being committed today.  Our Lord had a perfect knowledge of all these sins thanks to the “beatific vision” which He possessed from the moment of His conception.

When Our Lord asks us to console Him, He is asking us to comfort Him with respect to this triple sadness:  that of His Mystical Body, by consoling persecuted Christians;  the metaphorical sorrow of His Divinity offended by our sins, by doing penance;  and that of His Sacred Humanity, by sharing in the pains of His agony, especially through the practice of Holy Hours, but also through the meditation of the Rosary, attending Mass, and receiving Holy Communion in reparation:  “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men.  Make reparation for their crimes, and console your God”  (the angel to the three children of Fatima in 1916).

“We do not console someone effectively unless we participate in his sufferings;  thereby taking a portion of them upon ourselves.  It is certainly an admirable and touching condescendence of Almighty God – the God of all consolation, entirely sufficient to Himself – to want to be in need of us, the same as He chose to be in need of the consoling angel at Gethsemane.  This implies that we must have our share in the sufferings of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, participating, in a certain measure, in the sorrowful life that He led on earth, before we partake of His glorious life in heaven.” [Garrigou-Lagrange, work cited above, page 14.]

This was well understood by little Francisco of Fatima.  Sister Lucy wrote of him as “having no other thought than to console Our Lord and Our Lady, after seeing how sad they were in the visions.”   Sister Lucy writes further:

“One day, I asked him, ‘Francisco, what would you rather do: console Our Lord, or convert sinners so that there will be no more souls going to hell?’  He answered, ‘I prefer to console Our Lord.  Didn’t you see how Our Lady looked so sad last month when she told us that no one should offend Our Lord anymore, because He has already been offended too much?  I would like to console Our Lord and then afterwards convert sinners so that they will no longer offend Him’” (see the Sel de la Terre, #53, pp.232-233).

Today, more than ever, Our Lord is saddened:  by the persecution of Catholics everywhere in the world ─ including the more hidden, subtle persecution taking place in our formerly Christian nations, carried out by secularist propaganda, whose program is to instill atheism in the souls of men;  and by the worldwide revolt “against God and against His Anointed One” (Psalm 2:2) ─ including in His Church, where the modernists “prefer the fables of men” (2 Tim. 4:4) rather than Tradition.

Let us console Our Lord by our efforts to live a truly Catholic life, for example, by not wasting our time with audio-visual entertainments, or with other useless amusements, by fleeing excessive modern-day comforts that only make us soft and lazy, by reading a good catechism or other edifying books, etc.

Community Chronicle

December 31st: The community goes on pilgrimage to one of Anjou’s most hallowed sanctuaries: “Our Lady of Béhuard” situated on an island in the middle of the Loire River.  After Compline, a (growing) number of faithful join us in singing a Te Deum of thanksgiving (with a plenary indulgence).

January 16th:  Mr. François-Xavier Peron gives a conference for the faithful on Pope Francis’ revolutionary “Synod on the Family”.

January 16th – 17th:  Fathers Angelico and Marie-Laurent are in Alsace for a tertiary meeting, followed the next day by Sunday Mass and conferences for the faithful of the Combat for the Faith.  Regular tertiary meetings throughout the year give us the chance to provide Sunday Mass for a growing number of faithful in many different regions:  Paris, Brittany, Alsace, Lyons, Clermont-Ferrand… (Not all these meetings can be mentioned in this short chronicle.)

February 3rd – 4th:  Father Prior and Father Marie-Dominique preach the preparatory retreat to the seminarians of Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort Seminary before their cassock-taking.

February 5thPontifical High Mass and imposition of the cassock by H.E Bishop Faure for six seminarians.

February 21stFathers Marie-Dominique and Reginald lead the boys of the Marian Congregation of our school on a pilgrimage to Pontchâteau, in Brittany, to pray at the famous Calvary of St. Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort.

February 27thFathers Angelico and Hyacinth-Marie are with the “Our Lady of Fatima Youth Club” for one of the regular outings in the countryside of Anjou.

March 7thFeast of St. Thomas Aquinas, light of the Church and glory of the Dominican Order!   The festivities include a Solemn High Mass and a conference on the method of St. Thomas.  We also have the joy of receiving the visits of Fr. McDonald, Fr. Bruno (U.S.M.L.), and Sr. Marie-Liesse (former SSSPX).

March 24th:  Holy Thursday.  For the first time at the Friary, we are graced with a Chrismal Mass, officiated by H.E. Bishop Faure.  At this Mass, the Bishop consecrates the Holy Oils necessary for the sacraments of Confirmation, Extreme Unction and Holy Orders (and solemn Baptisms) during the coming year.  What an eloquent demonstration of the importance and necessity of the recent episcopal consecrations!  Without Bishops, it is impossible for priests to continue their apostolate, and have their candidates ordained to the priesthood.

March 26th – 27th:  Easter Vigil.  The wind and rain seem to be stirred up by the devil (no doubt angered by the two adults to be purified in the waters of Baptism that night) in order to prevent the blessing of the new fire and the procession with the Easter candle.  Their efforts are to no avail, and the Vigil Mass is celebrated in presence of an unusually large and fervent crowd of faithful.

April 4th – 11th: Fr. Louis-Marie is in Rome for a pilgrimage with the senior class of Saint Thomas Aquinas Boys’ School.  It was an occasion for them to see up close the glories of Eternal Rome, as well as the miseries of Conciliar Rome…

April 12th:  Classes start back up for the schools, the clerical brothers and the seminarians.

April 17thFr. Marie-Laurent, accompanied by two seminarians, mans a booth at the annual assembly of the “French Renewal” patriotic movement, in Paris.  More and more people are worried about the world political situation; our presence at such gatherings allows us to help souls analyze current events under the light of the Faith.

May 5th:  Feast of the Ascension and annual gathering of the alumni of St. Thomas Aquinas Boys’ school.  What a consolation to witness the perseverance of former students, and hear them say “thank you” for the doctrine and apologetics courses they received!

May 13th-15th:  Fr. Angelico and Br. Louis-Bertrand are at Le Puy-en-Velay (France’s oldest Marian Shrine) for the Pentecost pilgrimage of the Combat for the Faith.  In his sermon during the Pontifical High Mass on Sunday, His Excellency Ferreira da Costa (Dom Thomas of Aquinas O.S.B.), recounted how the official recognition of the conciliar church led inevitably to the abandonment of the combat for the Faith in the Barroux monastery (France) and Campos (Brazil).  His conclusion: it is now up to us to continue the fight!

News from our work sites

The installation of the new library is progressing.  One by one, the donated movable bookshelves are being adapted by a local ironsmith to fit the rails on the floor.

A large part of the stone wall protecting the property having collapsed, “Eddy”, our maintenance man (a professionally trained mason), is doing a beautiful job in restoring it with the help of a few of the high school boys, happy to learn the trade.

clip_image004

Stone wall under repair. In the foreground we see the beginning of the foundations of a future wood shop for the boys’ school.

 

A few overdue projects to accomplish:

-The paving of the parking lot and two entrance roads, which have been seriously deteriorated over the years by the steady increase of traffic (daily drop-offs and pick-ups for the school children, three Sunday Masses, as well as other various parish activities).

- New buildings for the Friary workshop.  For the moment, the lay brothers work in temporary barracks built by the US army in 1945, and we’re not sure how long they will remain standing. (A wood shop for the boys’ school is also planned).

-The refurbishing of the Chapter room; in particular, the installation of a worthy altar for the daily Masses which are celebrated there.

 

For timely articles and spiritual reading please go to our website:  

www.dominicansavrille.us

 

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. 99025-9998

In Canada:

The Association of St. Dominic

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

201-21 Street East

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

S7K OB8 Canada

Please specify: CAN$: acc. #40-91531

In the U.K.:

The Association of St. Dominic

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Edinburgh Comiston Branch, 17 Comiston Road

Edinburgh EH10 6AA

Please specify: Acc # 00105564

 

For more information :

Couvent de la Haye-aux-Bonshommes

49240 Avrillé, France

clip_image006

Answer to Fr Bouchacourt (SSPX)

Answer to Fr Bouchacourt (SSPX)

On July 1, 2015, on the Porte Latine, website of the Society in France, Fr Bouchacourt, Superior of the District, published a communiqué warning against the Dominican community of Avrillé. The same communiqué was also published in Fideliter 227, September/October 2015, magazine of the Society in France.

The Dominicans answered respectfully on their Website.

As the Society is now spreading the English translation of the communiqué of Fr Bouchacourt, the Dominicans publish here their answer in English.

Here in part 1 is the communiqué of Fr Bouchacourt, followed by the answer of the Dominicans:

PART 1. Communiqué of Fr Bouchacourt

1. For more than a year the Dominican Fathers of the friary in Avrillé have been spreading and supporting defiance against the authorities of the Society of St. Pius X, especially with regard to Bishop Fellay and the General House.

During conferences, in publications and on their website, they have accused the superiors of the Society of St. Pius X of giving up the good fight for the Faith in order to drag the Society at all costs into an agreement with the Roman authorities.

We have tried, in vain, during various meetings, to prove to them the contrary and to show them that their attitude was imperiling the unity of Tradition by sowing doubt and division. This communique intends to re-establish the truth so as to defend the honor of our superiors and that of our priestly family.

2. The outstanding acts of this increasingly public opposition were the following:

  • On Sunday, January 19, 2014, the Dominican Fathers distribute to persons who came to attend Mass at the friary in Avrillé their “Address [Appeal] to the Faithful”, a document made public on January 7 of that year, accusing the General House in Menzingen of going “in the opposite direction” from the one pursued until now by Archbishop Lefebvre, “by getting closer to modernist Rome” and stubbornly continuing “on that path that leads to death”; the Fathers in Avrillé are among the signers of this document;
  • On that same day, Fr. Pierre-Marie gives a conference to the faithful who came to Avrillé, to explain and justify the validity of this “Address to the Faithful”;
  • The text of this “Address to the Faithful”, accompanied by an introduction justifying it, is published in the magazine Le Sel de la terre [The Salt of the Earth], no. 88 (Spring 2014), pp. 138-139;
  • Confidential correspondence exchanged with Bishop Fellay after the publication of the “Address to the Faithful” is published in Le Sel de la terre, no. 89 (Summer 2014), pp. 215-220;
  • The Dominican Fathers take a position in favor of the episcopal consecration of Bishop Faure on March 19, 2015, and publish a long dossier justifying this act in Le Sel de la terre, no. 92 (Spring 2015), pp. 139-169.

3. Like all the signers of the “Address to the Faithful”, the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé thought that they had to present:

“…not a declaration that they were breaking away from the Society of St. Pius X, but on the contrary, public testimony to their firm, faithful attachment to the principles that always guided Archbishop Lefebvre in the fight for the Faith.”

But in this they are laboring entirely under a delusion and are drawing into it all who follow them. For Archbishop Lefebvre always conducted this fight for the Faith not only in doctrinal fidelity to Tradition, but also in order, in unity and in peace, in the spirit of obedience.

The Fathers of Avrillé are not faithful to these principles, for they denigrate the authority of Archbishop Lefebvre’s successor and cast suspicion on the acts of his government so as to create a dialectic between the members of the Society and their superiors, setting even the priests one against another. In order to detach oneself [lawfully] from an authority, it is necessary for the latter actually to urge the subjects to sin against faith or morals.

Now the Dominicans of Avrillé cannot show which acts performed by the Superior General demonstrate that “Menzingen is betraying the fight for the Faith.” Therefore the General House is not the one that is currently betraying this fight for the Faith; rather, those who label themselves the “Resistance” are the ones who are weakening it by their subversive manoeuvers.

4. The consecration of a bishop by Bishop Williamson is altogether unjustifiable. Whatever may be the false pretexts whereby some try to make it plausible, it only aggravates this spirit of independence and division. Archbishop Lefebvre always expressed himself very clearly to warn us against such a state of mind. As he said during a meeting held in Econe on July 4, 1988:

“The Superior General is the one who maintains the ties with Rome and, in a word, takes responsibility for Tradition, for this is the structure of the Society that exists in the Church’s eyes. We never wanted any organization of Tradition or any presidency of such an association; nonetheless the fact remains that the Society is de facto the spinal column of Tradition, its providential instrument, on which all initiatives of Tradition must rely.”

In supporting the episcopal consecration of Bishop Faure, the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé make themselves accomplices in a harmful act and do serious damage to the common good of Tradition, inasmuch as the only reason mentioned to justify this act is based on the unproven accusation that the Society of St. Pius X had abandoned the fight for the Faith. 

5. It is obvious that no superior who is responsible in God’s sight for the good of his district can fail to react to these repeated provocations [prises de position]. We cannot allow distrust, division, or a partisan, disparaging spirit to become established within our ranks. This is a matter of the common good of the flock, and the first duty of a pastor is to preserve its unity and cohesion by putting it out of the reach of these troublemakers.

6. Consequently, given so many dishonest accusations, the District of France can no longer support the Dominican community in Avrillé which, by its subversive schemes, is sowing doubt and division in the ranks of Tradition and weakening its forces.

This situation is very regrettable. May the Holy Ghost enlighten the superior of the Dominican community in Avrillé, and may Our Lord and Our Lady keep us in the unity of truth and charity, faithful to the good fight for the Faith conducted by Archbishop Lefebvre, for the honor of Christ the King, that of Holy Church and the good of our souls.

Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, SSPX District Superior of France

July 1, 2015, on the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord

 

PART 2. Respectful answer of the Dominicans in six points

Point # 1.   We read in the communiqué:

“During conferences, in publications and on their website, they [the Dominicans of Avrillé] have accused the superiors of the Society of St. Pius X of giving up the good fight for the Faith in order to drag the Society at all costs into an agreement with the Roman authorities.”

This is inexact.

Our disagreement with the Superior General of the SSPX arises from the fact that the superior is prepared to make a practical agreement with authorities who still profess the conciliar errors.

* From 1988 to 2012 the Society held this wise principle:

No practical agreement with Rome without a prior doctrinal agreement.”

This principle was again clearly affirmed by the Chapter of 2006:

“The contacts that the Society has from time to time with the Roman authorities has as its only goal to help them once again to take ownership of Tradition, which the Church cannot deny without losing its identity, and not the search for an advantage for itself, or to reach an impossible purely practical agreement”.

* In March 2012 Mgr. Fellay announced that he was abandoning this principle ( by affirming: “ it is not a question of a principle but of a line of conduct”). This abandonment was supported by the Chapter of 2012. Since then, despite numerous entreaties, Mgr. Fellay has refused to return to the former principle.

* On the 31st of May 2012, we wrote to Father Bouchacourt: “It is because we wish to keep this principle – which is the legacy of Mgr. Lefebvre – that you are preparing to condemn us.   Or rather that Mgr. Fellay is preparing to condemn us by your mouth”.


Point # 2.   We read in the communiqué:

‘The Dominicans of Avrillé cannot show which acts performed by the Superior General demonstrate that Menzingen is betraying the fight for the Faith.

The words in inverted double commas are wrongly attributed to us: we are not the authors ( see Le Sel de la terre  92, p.141).

What we do say (and it is obvious from point 1), is that Menzingen has changed its line of conduct in its relationship with Rome, engendering a loss of confidence amongst a great number of traditionalists.


Point # 3.   The communiqué reproaches us for having published “ a confidential correspondence exchanged with Mgr. Fellay” in Le Sel de la terre 89, p.215-22.

It is sufficient to refer to the published text to see that there is nothing confidential in these letters. Mgr. Fellay forbade us all collaboration with the Society, deprived us of ordinations and of the holy oils. It was normal that we should make known the reasons on which he purported to lean, and also that the rupture came from his side and not ours.


Point # 4.   We read in the communiqué:

“The only reason mentioned to justify this act [the episcopal consecration of Mgr Faure] is based on the unproven accusation that the Society of St. Pius X had abandoned the fight for the Faith.”

This is inexact.

We have expounded several grave objective reasons which justify the episcopal consecration of Mgr. Faure ( see Le Sel de la terre no. 92, p.139-170, and no. 93, p.200-208) and notably the fact that Mgr. Fellay refuses ordinations and even the holy oils (necessary for several sacraments, in particular extreme unction) to our community and to several others who do not share the new policy established in 2012.


Point # 5.   The communiqué relies on words said by Mgr. Lefebvre during a meeting in Écône on the 4th of July 1988:

“We never wanted any organization of Tradition or any presidency of such an association; nonetheless the fact remains that the Society is de facto the spinal column of Tradition, its providential instrument, on which all initiatives of Tradition must rely.”

As Mgr. Lefebvre said, it was a matter of fact (de facto) and not of right. This fact could have endured for a long time, if Mgr. Fellay had not taken the decision to break the unity of Tradition by changing the line of conduct with regards to Rome, and by excluding Mgr. Williamson from the Chapter of 2012, then by expelling him from the Society because he did not approve this change in the line of conduct.

 

Point # 6.   We read again:

“This communique intends to re-establish the truth.”

At the same time it accuses us of:

— spreading and supporting defiance against the authorities of the Society of St. Pius X;

— denigrating the authority of Archbishop Lefebvre’s successor;

— creating a dialectic between the members of the Society and their superiors;

— subversive manoeuvers;

— making themselves accomplices in a harmful act [the consecration of Bp. Faure];

— doing serious damage to the common good of Tradition;

— repeated provocations;

— [setting up] distrust, division, or a partisan, disparaging spirit;

— dishonest accusations;

— sowing doubt and division in the ranks of Tradition and weakening its forces;

— subversive schemes.

Is that all ? ….

The truth is something which accords with reality.

Also before “so many false accusations” we are happy to say to the readers of the communiqué: “Come and see, read our publications (Le Sel de la terre, our Letter to friends and benefactors, our English website), and see if what can be found there is compatible with the melodramatic description of the communiqué.

The reality is that despite the differences with the Superior General about his new policy towards Rome, on our part we remain friends of the Society, and we wish it to overcome the crisis which it has been undergoing since 2012.

Open Letter to the Faithful of Quebec and the Maritime Provinces by Fr Pierre ROY (SSPX)

Open Letter to the Faithful of Quebec and the Maritime Provinces


by Fr Pierre ROY(SSPX)

Lakeville, June 3rd, 2016

Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus

« The night is far advanced; the day is at hand. Let us therefore lay aside the works of darkness, and put on the armor of light. Let us walk becomingly as in the day. » Roman, 13; 12-13

Dear brethren,

This letter is to notify you of my decision to leave the Society of St. Pius X.  In spite of my sermon on April 17th last, many of you will be surprised to learn of my departure.  I hope then that these lines will show more clearly the reasons why I am leaving.

I would like to say first that I did not wish that my sermon of April 17th be published urbi et orbi and that I myself did all I could to prevent its diffusion.  I was preaching merely for the chapel of Montreal, that portion of the Lord’s flock entrusted to me by my superior.  With that said, the Lord has willed that it be otherwise.  Blessed be his Holy Name!

I was born and raised in the arms of the Society.  I owe everything to the work of Archbishop Lefebvre.  This is why I am well aware of the gravity of the action I take before God and before yourselves, and aware also of the duty one day to account for myself before the Tribunal of the Just Judge.

For several years already the authorities of the Society – they no longer cloak themselves – have been organizing a reunification with Apostate Rome.  Is it legitimate to place oneself under authorities who do not have our Faith, or to accept from them a recognition, so long as they demand “no compromise”?1   I leave you to judge of it with these words of Pope Pius XI :

“Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him : God speed you.’ For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful?” (Encyclical Mortalium Animos against oecumenism)

You also know, dearest faithful, that the Society has always called it illegitimate to align oneself with those who have removed themselves from Tradition and no longer profess the Faith in its integrity.  Why, after all, have we permitted ourselves these last 30 years to criticize the Fraternity of Saint Peter?  Why have we more recently criticized Campos?  Why did we repudiate the agreement reached in 2006 by the Institute of the Good Shepherd? 

Having recently asserted to a superior that it will be necessary for us to cease criticizing these communities, I received the following response: “Ah, but we will continue to criticize them!” I then asked why, by what principle. I received no further reply.

No, either we have been wrong since 1988 and even since 1975, or we have been wrong since 2012.  Unless we too adopt a subjective conception of the truth, and what was true in 1988 is no longer.  A last solution – by means of which seemingly anything can be justified : the situation has changed. We are witness, says our superior general, to a turning point in the history of the Church : they no longer want to impose the Council upon us; Pope Francis “appears to be someone who would like to see the whole world saved, that everyone have access to God,”2  he continues. Did Jesus not say, “If you love me, keep my commandments”? (John 14:15)  One may seriously ask himself if Pope Francis, who practically denies the commandments before the whole world, truly seeks to save souls.  On the other hand, did Archbishop Lefebvre not write in his Spiritual Journey, his testament to his priests, “It is the strict duty of every priest and layman wishing to remain Catholic to separate himself clearly from the Conciliar Church, for so long as she does not profess the tradition of the Church’s Magisterium and of the Catholic Faith,”3 as we were reminded by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais not so long ago?

Some will say, “It is not yet done. Wait until it is done!” This is what I myself said to many among you, my dear faithful, for some years, hoping and believing sincerely that the authorities of our Society would turn back.  But I must face the evidence that they have not.  Day after day, declaration after declaration, they continue to inoculate into the souls of faithful and priest alike a pernicious error, which holds it legitimate to seek from the Conciliar authority a recognition and jurisdiction that is made exceedingly dubious by this authority’s daily betrayal of the FaithThis error, which insinuates itself in the spirits of each, causes even priests known for their doctrinal intransigence (this being a virtue) to become less and less combative to the point where they will soon be ready to betray everything.

This is accomplished in a gradual way and without us realizing the ambiguities introduced.  It began by convincing us that a Motu Proprio which puts the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ on an equal footing with, and even subordinate to, what Archbishop Lefebvre very justly called the “mass of Luther,” was welcome and beneficial.  We thanked the conciliar authorities for this gesture, though timidly maintaining that solely the mass of St. Pius V is legitimate.  It was a first step, or perhaps a first misstep.  They say to us, “Does the Motu Proprio not produce marvellous results?”  But since when have practical results been more important than the purity of the doctrine of Christ? Since when has truth profited from human compromise?  “Do not do evil that there may come good,” the Apostle told us. (Romans 3:8)

Next they convinced us it was acceptable to sing a solemn Te Deum for the publication of a document which, in lifting the “excommunications” of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, restated in principle that our bishops had been well and truly excommunicated.  This decree lifting the false sentence brought against our bishops is ultimately nothing but a fresh condemnation of the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre, whom we have still the insolence to call “our revered founder.”

Not putting in practice the advice of St. John nor that of Our Lord Jesus Christ (“Beware of false prophets,” Matthew 7:15), in discussion after discussion, and meeting after meeting, we eventually silence our suspicions, which are more than legitimate and healthy in the face of persons who deny the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus ChristThis is how our superior has become, according to Pope Francis, a man “with whom one can dialogue,” with whom he who currently directs the subversion and the destruction of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ believes he can do “good work.4  Is there any wonder then that they happily grant us jurisdiction for confessions (which was never lacking)?  How can we claim that we are asking for nothing, but that Rome gives everything?  Have we not just recently asked for the doubtful jurisdiction of conciliar Rome with respect to the other sacraments?  No, truly, we ask for nothing!  Rome, who scourges Our Lord Jesus Christ, wishes us well!  This is rather worrying: which side are we on?

The new direction of our Society is imposed on priests, on many priests who have never desired it.  Enforced silences, transfers, promotions, trials, threats, promises, exclusions, all become justifiable when they work do defend the “position of the Society,” which is in fact – as always in a revolution – the position of a minority which has taken power and which deftly manipulates the passive majority.  Following my sermon of April 17th, besides the desperate reactions of certain colleagues, they ordered me to be silent.  They wished me to swear on my priesthood (!) to speak no more from the pulpit on the question of an accord with apostate Rome.  “You have many other subjects on which you can speak,” they told me.  Naturally I am conscious that the principal subject of preaching is not the joining of our Society to Rome, but the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  But I would note – you are my witnesses, dear brothers – that that was the first time in five years of ministry that I had spoken on this question from the pulpit.  I refused to be silenced.  However, I promised to warn my superiors before treating the subject from the pulpit again. “If you intend to speak of it again,” they told me, ‘You will have the right to confess and to say mass, but you cannot preach.  Otherwise, leave the Society and say what you wish.”  That is what I am doing, brethren, because a priest must preach and alert his flock to the wolves who threaten to devour them.

I have no absolute certainty that the Society will join itself to Rome.  Nevertheless I have moral certainty that they will do so, given the clear, express, and reiterated will of both Rome and the Society to arrive at an arrangement, and given also the absorption these last months of the last episcopal voices which firmly opposed it.  That God preserve us from this tragedy – this will, in spite of my departure, continue to be my fervent prayer!

In the meanwhile, having on the day of my baptism renounced not only Satan and his works, but also his seductions, I cannot accept that my immortal soul be sold to the conciliar sect, nor accept even that it be put up for sale.  Consequently, the fact that the superiors of the Society have shown on numerous occasions their amenability to a practical accord (in the absence of Rome’s conversion) suffices for me to take this step, prudently, not before having prayed at length and taken counsel with wise priests.  There is no question for me whatsoever of remaining silent about what is being done.  I have kept silence too long, hoping and assuring you, brethren, that the Society superiors would eventually open their eyes.  But the more time passed, the more was I forced to accept the evidence that those who lead us do not intend to turn back.

I must confess that to speak openly of the treachery we are living through is a very delicate business if one remains within the Society.  Which is why I am leaving: for the ability to preach the truth in its integrity, since I must someday answer for each of the souls entrusted to me. To keep silent was no longer possible without making myself guilty before God.

In the past I have severely criticized those we call the “Resistance,” but whom others call the “Subversion,” and still others, “Fidelity.”  I must say that besides the fact that I did not at that time see things as clearly as (by the grace of God) I now do, I was reacting mainly to the misbehavior of certain colleagues who visited our province and who, though clear-sighted, were rather cavalier, much to the discredit of the courageous stance taken by those who refused the betrayal imposed on us.  I will try with God’s grace to avoid the attitudes I have denounced and to devote my energy to rebuilding rather than to badgering those who wish to place us in Rome’s hands.  With that said, to denounce errors and deceptions remains a necessary duty which with God’s aid I will fulfill.

Many clear-sighted priests do not dare for now to act against the imposition.  I believe the principal reason restraining them is the fear of breaking the unity of the institutions that have with such difficulty been built up.  How accept that in dividing the faithful, we risk contributing to the closure of a chapel?  The reply is that faithful priests are not the origin of the division brewing in our ranks, but the very authorities of the Society, who would have us believe that we are participating in a turning point in the situation of the Church, when in fact it is not the situation that has changed, but only their minds.  Dear brothers, if the directors of the Society continue to sow distrust and confusion by their mistaken ideas, the division will swell, and it may become necessary to burst it open in our region for the common good.

For my part, I would that the Lord spare me from having prematurely to break the unity of the few chapels we have in French Canada.  This is why I have decided to remain for the moment in the Maritimes.  The faithful in these parts lack frequent access to the true Mass and the true Sacraments.  They are mostly without spiritual help.  They raise their children without the support of the Church.  Therefore I thought it best to keep to this region and concentrate my efforts on developing these small groups that have so little access to the sacraments, hoping one day to return these communities to the hands of the Society, only made larger and more fervent by the grace of God and by my ministry.  For this is my greatest hope: that the Society turns back in a clear and unequivocal manner, that I may return these missions to it, and that I may myself re-enter its ranks, profiting anew from the priestly fellowship offered there.  I cling to no illusions, but miracles are always possible…

However, it remains clear that the more the situation deteriorates, the more it will become necessary to tend to souls in Quebec who feel betrayed and deceived.  My hope is that more priests arise and come carrying the truth to those who desire it for themselves and their children.  Because while it is obvious that the Society continues to disburse the help of the sacraments – of which it would be illegitimate to deprive oneself without very grave reason – it is no small thing in this crisis of the Church to have access to sound preaching and to continue to see clearly through the painful events we are experiencing.

Begging you pray for me, I also assure you, dear brethren, of my prayers at the altar and of my blessing.

“Serve ye the Lord with gladness!” Ps. 99

Father Pierre Roy

Mission Notre-Dame-de-Joie

1974 Route 134

Lakeville, E1H 1A6

New Brunswick