Continuing the Battle of Saint Pius X

Continuing the Battle of Saint Pius X

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

My Dear Brethren,

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

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

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

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

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

Restoring all things in Christ

He set the tone in his first encyclical:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But let us not be discouraged! The pope continues:

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

Battling Modernism

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

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

Msgr. Lefebvre could write:

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

How did we get there?

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

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

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

And Saint Pius X analyzed the entire modernist system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And they held the power at the Second Vatican Council.

Continuing the fight of Saint Pius X

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

Studying and disseminating Catholic doctrine

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

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

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

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

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

Living the Mass

Then we must focus our life on the Mass.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making Our Lord reign amongst us

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

**

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

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

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

2 — Pius XII , Ibid. p. 472

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Say That A Canonical Recognition

Is Not Feasible Before Rome Returns To Tradition,

Is This A Schismatic Attitude?

By Maubert

published in Le Sel de la Terre 107

Reasons for an Affirmative Response

  • First Reason

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

  • Second Reason

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

  • Third Reason

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

  • Fourth Reason

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

Opinions to the Contrary

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

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

In-Depth Response

  • What is schism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The bond of faith is first

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archbishop Lefebvre said clearly:

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

  • And the pope?

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

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

  • Origin of our attitude

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

1Fideliter 70, p. 6.

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

3Fideliter 70, p. 8.

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

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

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

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

Sermon of His Excellency Bp. Gerardo Zendejas

given in Avrillé (France)

for the Consecration of the Holy Oils

and Chrismal Mass of the Holy Thursday

April 18, 2019

Picture

Dear Rev. Prior, Priests, Brothers and Religious,

My Dear Brethren,

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

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

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

Here are some dates of modification:

1968 a new rite of priestly Ordination

1969 a New Mass

1969 a new rite of Baptism

1969 a new rite of Matrimony

1971 a new rite of Confirmation

1972 a new rite of Extreme Unction

1973 a new rite of Penance

1988 a new rite of exorcism, etc..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we Accept?

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

By Maubert

Published in Le Sel de la Terre 101

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

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

What is an “Accord“?

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

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

At first, an Accord can be doctrinal

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

Then an Accord can be practical

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

Finally, an Accord can be simultaneously doctrinal and practical

There are two cases to envision:

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

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

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

What is a Canonical Recognition?

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

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

Nature of a Canonical Recognition

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

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

Consequences of a Canonical Recognition

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

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

Canonical Recognition and the Apostolate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Unilateral” Recognition?

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

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

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

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

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

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

De Facto Recognition?

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

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

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

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

Canonical Recognition and Agreement

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

The clarity of words

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translation by AA

(to be continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé


From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued, number 11)


The three Declarations (continued)


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


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

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

How does NA give a new teaching?

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

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

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

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

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

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


Could you point out a sophism of this new teaching?

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

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

What are the consequences of this new teaching?

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

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

What does the Church become in this concert of religions?

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


3. Gravissimum educationis (GE): Christian Education


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

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

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

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

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

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

(To be continued)


Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Eight) – The Nine Decrees (decrees 1-5)

Little catechism of the Second Vatican Council (Part Eight) – The Nine Decrees (decrees 1-5)

by Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

Dominican in Avrillé

 

From Le Sel de la terre 93, Summer 2015

(continued,number 8)

 

The Nine Decrees

 

1. The three Decrees on bishops and priests

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

2. Presbyterorum ordinis (PO): the ministry and life of priests.

3. Optatam totius Ecclesiæ renovationem (OT): the formation of priests.

 

How does Christus Dominus (CD) describe the bishop?

[Note from editor:  reminder from a previous article that LG=”Lumen Gentium”]

CD, conforming to LG (especially its chapter 3), views the bishop above all as a pastor (exercising the power to govern) to the detriment of his two other aspects of doctor and pontiff (having the powers of teaching and sanctifying) (§ 1, 2, 9, 11, 16).

Did CD change the doctrine concerning the episcopacy?

The principal change concerns the power given by the consecration.  According to traditional doctrine, only the power of orders is given by the episcopal consecration, with an aptitude to receive jurisdiction7.  But CD, in its § 3, affirms that the bishops receive their “episcopal office” through the “episcopal consecration”, referring to LG § 21: “Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing“.

 

What remarks do you make on Presbyterorum ordinis (PO)?

§ 2 (in accordance with LG § 2, 4, and 17) speaks first of the priesthood of all the baptized (“all the faithful are made a holy and royal priesthood“) and then of the ministerial priesthood (“The same Lord, however, has established ministers among his faithful“), as if the latter emanates from the former, a Protestant idea.

§ 9 encourages priests to share the ecumenical attitude of the Council: “Mindful of the prescripts on ecumenism [a note refers to UR], let them not forget their brothers who do not enjoy full ecclesiastical communion with us.”

Finally, § 12 encourages the priests to be “consistently better instruments in the service of the whole People of God” “to fulfill its pastoral desires of an internal renewal of the Church [understood: the formation of a new Conciliar Church], of the spread of the Gospel in every land [the new evangelization], and of a dialogue with the world of today” [dialogue replacing missionary work]”.  As can be seen, PO expresses, between the lines, a new conception of the priest and his mission.

What remarks do you make on Optatam totius (OT)?

This decree’s aim is to add “new elements…which correspond to the constitutions and decrees of this sacred council and to the changed conditions of our times” (preamble) and “forming the future priests of Christ in the spirit of the renewal promoted by this sacred synod“.  It thus concerns forming priests having the spirit of Vatican II.

In particular, they must be formed for dialogue (§ 15 and 19), a term “completely unknown and unused in the Church’s teaching before the council8OT refers to the encyclical Ecclesiam suam of Paul VI (6 August 1964), which introduced the new conception of dialogue, to the detriment of the missionary spirit.  Before the Council, priests were formed to be missionaries.  Now they are formed for dialogue.

§ 15 is very insufficient regarding what concerns philosophical studies.  There is no mention of Saint Thomas Aquinas, but only of “relying on a philosophical patrimony which is perennially valid” (with a reference to Ecclesiam suam of Paul VI); “taking into account the philosophical investigations of later ages” is recommended.  Now, the current crisis in the Church essentially adheres to the introduction of a false subjective philosophy to the detriment of the realist philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas.  This is why Saint Pius X proposed as the primary remedy of modernism “the scholastic philosophy…which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us” (Pascendi, § 45) and vigorously insisted in his last Motu proprio, Doctoris angelici (29 June 1914): “if they [‘teachers of philosophy and sacred theology’] deviated so much as a step, in metaphysics especially, from Thomas Aquinas, they exposed themselves to grave risk“.

§ 16 asks to draw one’s inspiration from LG and SC, whose differences we have seen9.

Did not Msgr. Lefebvre rely on OT for the formation of his priests?

OT was prepared by a commission presided over by Cardinal Giuseppe Pizzardo, who was Prefect of the Congregation for Seminaries since 1937 and who held offices in the Curia since 1908, under the reign of St. Pius X. It is not surprising to find there some good passages.  A paragraph of OT (§ 16), which concerned the place of Saint Thomas Aquinas in a course of theology, inspired Msgr. Lefebvre for his seminary; he also drew from this decree the idea of a year of spirituality (§ 12).

2.  The two Decrees on the religious and the laity10

1. Perfectæ caritatis (PC): the renovation and adaptation of religious life.

2. Apostolicam actuositatem (AA): the apostolate of the laity.

What adaptation did Perfectæ caritatis (PC) accomplish?

PC adapts the religious life… to the spirit of the world.

The Church has always honored religious life, which it considers as a state of perfection superior to the ordinary state of Christians, aiming at more easily acquiring sanctity, i.e., the heroic exercise of Christian virtues.

From the preamble, the religious life is presented not as a state of perfection but as “a splendid sign of the heavenly kingdom“.  PC does not speak of state of life, avoids the expression “state of perfection“, and mentions heroic virtues only incidentally to the search for perfection or sanctity11.

Another remarkable absence in this Decree: the virtue of religion (the word does not appear), which nevertheless characterizes religious life to the point of having given it its name.  It is by the assiduous practice of this virtue that the religious easily and rapidly achieve the perfection of Christian life.

In the name of the new “virtue” of equality, PC erases the hierarchy between the Christians of the world and the religious12, between the lay religious and choir religious13.

Thus, the Decree satisfied the objections of the Protestants who did not want to hear talk about a superiority of the religious life over the life in the world, nor of clerics over the laity.

Finally, while encouraging the religious to preserve “their withdrawal from the world” (§ 7), PCurges them to adjust their way of life to modern needs” (§ 10), “to the needs of our time” (§ 18), “to the requirements of time and…to modern conditions” (§ 20).  And in fact the adaptation “with the needs of our age” (§ 2) will be more applied than the “separation from the world” that characterized the religious life and spirit in the past.

It is no surprise that by revising the constitutions of the religious orders14 after the Council, the religious life in all the Church was destroyed in a few years.  The few religious who remain today –  apart from the resistors who try, against the winds and tides, to conserve the ancient conception of religious life – hardly distinguish themselves from the laity, and not only by the fact that they do not wear a habit!  (Moreover, as an aside, PC also allowed for the adaption of the religious habit15.)

What are the deficiencies of Apostolicam actuositatem (AA)?

This Decree tends to promote the laity unduly, the autonomy of the natural order ambiguously, Catholic action imprudently, false ecumenism, and is silent on the scourge of laicism.

How does AA promote the laity?

The promotion of the laity is done under the pretext of battling against what the progressives call “clericalism” and which, in reality, is only the divine will of a hierarchy between clerics and the laity16.

Without explicitly suppressing this hierarchy, this Decree opens doors that will largely serve, after the Council, to allow the laity into the government of the Church.

Some examples of ambiguous phrases exaggerate the role of the laity:

The Christian vocation by its very nature is also a vocation to the apostolate” (§ 2): one should recall that the apostolate of the laity is by nature different from the apostolate of the hierarchy, and that – except in particular cases – the laity first are sanctified by the good exercise of their duty of state: the primary mission of a family mother is to raise her children well, and not to go perform an apostolate outside her home!

But the laity likewise share in the priestly, prophetic, and royal office of Christ and therefore have their own share in the mission of the whole people of God in the Church and in the world.” (§ 2): exaggeration of the “priesthood” of the laity.  For the lay Christian, this “priesthood” consists in offering himself in sacrifice as a holy host (Rom. 12:1), not in exercising an apostolate “in the Church and in the world“.

Can one speak of an autonomy of the natural order?

The Council, in several of its texts, opens the way toward a form of naturalism in insisting on the autonomy of the natural order (§ 7 17).  AA also speaks of the “many areas of human life [that] have become increasingly autonomous” (§ 2), the “autonomy of the family” (§ 11), and the “autonomy of…various lay associations and enterprises” (§ 26).

It is true that there are laws (“law” is called “nomos” in Greek) proper to the natural order, to the family, and to the various human activities, but it is dangerous to speak of  autonomy in an age so distinguished by the spirit of independence and difficulty in submitting to a hierarchy.

It cannot be a coincidence that the “May 1968″ [riots in France] took place three years after the end of the Council, and that today all intervention of the Church in the temporal and lay domain is easily interpreted as clericalism.

What does AA say about Catholic action?

An entire paragraph (§ 20) of AA praises Catholic action understood according to Pius XI as a “collaboration of the laity in the apostolate of the hierarchy“.  “The most holy Council earnestly recommends these associations [of Catholic action] … which…produced excellent results for Christ’s kingdom.  These societies were deservedly recommended and promoted by the popes and many bishops“.

But it is known how Catholic action, initially conceived by St. Pius X as a movement of Catholics aiming to restore a Catholic society, later became a progressive movement, a so-called apostolate “for the environment“, in fact a center of agitation and protest in the Church.

How does AA sacrifice to ecumenism?

Vatican II having an ecumenical aim, it was necessary that it appear in the decree AA: “The quasi-common heritage of the Gospel and the common duty of Christian witness resulting from it recommend and frequently require the cooperation of Catholics with other Christians … common human values not infrequently call for cooperation between Christians pursuing apostolic aims and those who do not profess Christ’s name but acknowledge these values.  By this…cooperation…the laity bear witness to Christ, the Savior of the world, as well as to the unity of the human family.” (§ 27).

Unfortunately, as will be seen with the decree UR, the ecumenism promoted by the Council is a false ecumenism aiming not for the conversion of non-Catholics, but for the Masonic promotion of the unity of mankind: that thereafter led to the horrors of the various “Assisi” reunions and of post-conciliar interreligious dialogue.

(To be continued)


The Canonical Recognition in Question

The Canonical Recognition in Question

About the Conciliar Church

(Editorial of Le Sel de la terre 101)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he rightly drew the following conclusion:

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

May we accept a canonical recognition?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

My reverend sisters, my dear brethren,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)