My Lord and Dear Frs.,

This declaration "Ut Fideles inveniamur"  of Jan. 29, 2013, written originally in Portuguese by Fr Tomas de Aquino at the suggestion of Fr Joaquim of  BFVM monastery of Fr Jahir in Salvador Brazil during a priest meeting held at the Mosteiro de Santa Cruz in Novo Friburgo, Brazil, having received the signatures of those present in Brazil and those unable to be present in person, is the work of 2 Portuguese monasteries that "have not lost the Dogma of the Faith." It was written of Jan 29 and agreed to be released publicly on this Feb. 2, 2013 from Quito, Ecuador to the World under the protection of Our Lady of Quito,

in Christ,


Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Quito Ecuador February 2, 2013

Jan 29 2013 Declaration Monastery of Santa Cruz Nova Friburgo Brazil




DECLARATION MONASTERY OF SANTA CRUZ NOVA FRIBURGO BRAZIL PDF
DECLARACIÓN ESPAÑOL PDF
DECLARAÇÃO PORTUGUÊS PDF
DÉCLARATION FRANÇAISPDF

Available at:
http://www.inthissignyoushallconquer.com/

Mosteiro da Santa Cruz
Nova Friburgo , RJ Brasil
DECLARATION
UT FIDELES INVENIAMUR

29 January 2013
St. Francis de Sales

Following the example and teachings of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as well as of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer:

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary
to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth. We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused
to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and,
aft er the Council, in all the reforms which issued fr om it. (Archbishop Lefebvre Declaration November 21, 1974)

These words of Archbishop Lefebvre defi ne our attitude towards the Conciliar Church that beatifi ed Pope John Paul
II and declares that Pope Paul VI practiced heroic virtue. This Conciliar Church that renewed the scandal of Assisi and
reaffi rms the teachings of Vatican II is wanting to insert them into the Tradition of the Church, disregarding the teachings,
defi nitions, and condemnations of all the Popes before the Second Vatican Council. For this reason we make our own the
demands made by Archbishop Lefebvre that would verify and constitute the return of Rome to Tradition:

We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We
see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me,
but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the
position where I was put during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: Do you agree with the great
encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII,
Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and
their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council,
in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless. Th e positions will then be made
more clear. (Mgr. Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 66, November-December 1988, pp. 12-13).

Therefore, recalling the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, “without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment,” we
intend to continue our work for the defense of Tradition using all the means that Providence allows, working for the salvation
of souls, in forming candidates for the Priesthood, forming Religious, maintaining Catholic schools, helping Catholic
families and working for the return of society to submit to the sweet yoke of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of all nations
and the universe.

We appeal to all those who share the same ideal to unite with us, so that the movement going toward a disastrous submission
to Modernist Rome may not prevail in the bosom of Tradition. This direction toward Modernist Rome has been
clearly manifested in the letters, declarations, and other docuмents from the actual superiors of the Society of St. Pius X
in recent months.

With the Grace of God and the help of the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we determine to remain faithful to
the Roman Catholic Church and all the successors of St. Peter as well as Archbishop Lefebvre, in order to continue to be
“faithful dispensors of the Mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the Holy Ghost. Amen.” (I Cor. 4:1 et seq.)

(Present in Brazil)
Dom Tomas de Aquino, OSB (Brazil)
Dom Jahir Britto, FBVM (Brazil)
Fr. Ernesto Cardozo, FSSPX (Argentina)
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, FSSPX (USA)
Fr. David Hewko, FSSPX (USA)
Fr. Joaquim Daniel Maria de Sant’Ana, FBVM (Brazil)
Fr. Rene Trincado, FSSPX (Chile)

(in Absentia)
Bishop Richard Williamson, FSSPX (Great Britain)
Fr. Jean Michel Faure, FSSPX (France)
Fr Ronald Ringrose, (USA)
Fr. Richard Voigt, SDB (USA)
Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz, FSSPX (Columbia)
Fr. Brendan Dardis, (USA)
Fr. Arturo Vargas, FSSPX (Mexico)
Fr. Dominic Mary of the Pillar, OP (USA)

Wow -- a new priest's name on the list!

See if you can figure out who.  :scratchchin:

May Our Lady bless them and protect them.

I suggest an extra decade today, feast of the Presentation, for these valiant priests and for the SSPX.

 

Mosteiro da Santa Cruz
Nova Friburgo , RJ Brasil
DECLARATION
UT FIDELES INVENIAMUR

29 January 2013
St. Francis de Sales

Following the example and teachings of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as well as of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer:

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary
to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth. We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused
to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and,
aft er the Council, in all the reforms which issued fr om it. (Archbishop Lefebvre Declaration November 21, 1974)

These words of Archbishop Lefebvre defi ne our attitude towards the Conciliar Church that beatifi ed Pope John Paul
II and declares that Pope Paul VI practiced heroic virtue. This Conciliar Church that renewed the scandal of Assisi and
reaffi rms the teachings of Vatican II is wanting to insert them into the Tradition of the Church, disregarding the teachings,
defi nitions, and condemnations of all the Popes before the Second Vatican Council. For this reason we make our own the
demands made by Archbishop Lefebvre that would verify and constitute the return of Rome to Tradition:

We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We
see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me,
but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the
position where I was put during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: Do you agree with the great
encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII,
Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and
their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council,
in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless. Th e positions will then be made
more clear. (Mgr. Lefebvre, Fideliter, No. 66, November-December 1988, pp. 12-13).

Therefore, recalling the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, “without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment,” we
intend to continue our work for the defense of Tradition using all the means that Providence allows, working for the salvation
of souls, in forming candidates for the Priesthood, forming Religious, maintaining Catholic schools, helping Catholic
families and working for the return of society to submit to the sweet yoke of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the King of all nations
and the universe.

We appeal to all those who share the same ideal to unite with us, so that the movement going toward a disastrous submission
to Modernist Rome may not prevail in the bosom of Tradition. This direction toward Modernist Rome has been
clearly manifested in the letters, declarations, and other docuмents from the actual superiors of the Society of St. Pius X
in recent months.

With the Grace of God and the help of the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we determine to remain faithful to
the Roman Catholic Church and all the successors of St. Peter as well as Archbishop Lefebvre, in order to continue to be
“faithful dispensors of the Mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the Holy Ghost. Amen.” (I Cor. 4:1 et seq.)

(Present in Brazil)
Dom Tomas de Aquino, OSB (Brazil)
Dom Jahir Britto, FBVM (Brazil)
Fr. Ernesto Cardozo, FSSPX (Argentina)
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, FSSPX (USA)
Fr. David Hewko, FSSPX (USA)
Fr. Joaquim Daniel Maria de Sant’Ana, FBVM (Brazil)
Fr. Rene Trincado, FSSPX (Chile)

(in Absentia)
Bishop Richard Williamson, FSSPX (Great Britain)
Fr. Jean Michel Faure, FSSPX (France)
Fr Ronald Ringrose, (USA)
Fr. Richard Voigt, SDB (USA)
Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz, FSSPX (Columbia)
Fr. Brendan Dardis, (USA)
Fr. Arturo Vargas, FSSPX (Mexico)
Fr. Dominic Mary of the Pillar, OP (USA)

Now this is what I was asking for on the other thread - a statement of principles - this is exactly what was needed - short, pithy, precise... EXCELLENT !

In leaving aside the question of consecration it gets to the heart of the matter of forming priestly candidates while they already have a bishop.

Now's the time for other priests from the SSPX to commit to the fight - now there is an international dimension to the equation.

Father Faure is a new priest
http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/02/qui-est-labbe-jean-michel-faure.html

http://translate.google.ca/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Faveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/02/qui-est-labbe-jean-michel-faure.html

I saw this and thought it might be nice to have a copy on this thread since
the other one got locked and you know, months later it might be next to
impossible to find it.  I made the size a little bigger too.

Isn't this the same thing as on page 1 of this thread?    :confused1:

Father Faure is a new priest
http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/02/qui-est-labbe-jean-michel-faure.html

http://translate.google.ca/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Faveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2013/02/qui-est-labbe-jean-michel-faure.html

May I presume no relation to the famous composer Gabriel Fauré?



.
.
.

The Fauré Requiem is a showcase work that has been used by modern artists
as a backdrop for Newchurch.  IMHO it's a little unfortunate it has this association,
because it is a great work of music.  HOWEVER,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

There is a lot more to liturgical music than its objective beauty.  

I spoke to a well-known traditional convert about this over the phone years ago.
He has since passed away:  author Michael Malone, RIP.  

Mr. Malone told me something that is too often forgotten.  When a Protestant
convert goes to Mass and he hears a beautiful rendition of something, let's say,
A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, or Amazing Grace, regardless of how beautiful
the music is, it evokes in the listener recollection of all the heresies he left
behind when he converted, by association.  There may be no objective heresy
in the words of the songs, and there may be nothing demonic or anti-Catholic
per se in the musical intervals, chords or structure.

The problem is, that the person hearing the music is reminded of the erroneous
doctrine that he had been subject to prior to his conversion.  


And this is exactly the kind of thing that the current Pope is
encouraging with his false ecuмenism and hermeneutic of
continuity nonsense.  


This has nothing to do with Fr. Jean-Michel Faure.  

But it curiously is linked to what happened in my mind when I saw his name.
The name, Faure, evoked all this stuff.  



I do hope that Fr. Faure is able to cope with the effect that his
name will evoke, in many converts from Newchurch into the
Traditional Catholic Church.




One of the "problems" with the Fauré Requiem is that it omits the Dies Irae,
and it does this for unidentified reasons, however, in retrospect it would seem
likely that the composer wanted to distance his own composition from the
traditional sense of "doom and gloom" and direct it toward a more "glorious and
hopeful" future.  You know, the 'new springtime of Vatican II," even though he was
many decades in anticipation of Vatican II.  

The Fauré Requiem was first performed in 1893, but not in the USA until 1931 nor
in England until 1936.  Its popularity has grown over the years.

As an intellectual aside, it is entirely possible for someone to compose an
amendment or addition to the Fauré Requiem, consisting of a Dies Irae that
fits the style of the larger work.  That might be a challenging project for any
music major in Composition.  But even if a Dies Irae is added, there remains
the inescapable association the rest of the work has with Newchurch.