Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Raoul76 on May 08, 2011, 04:28:37 PM
-
I just happened to come across some information about Père le Floch, the priest who gives the ill-sounding quote in your sig, Stevus. He was associated with the Action Francaise movement condemned by Pius XI, for the reason that it puts the state above the Church.
Maurras, the leader of Action Francaise, was not Catholic himself but wanted to use Catholicism as a force for order. This pragmatic, state-centered attitude infests France even today.
Abbe Le Floch would not submit to Church teaching and was REMOVED as rector of his seminary by Pius XI. Perhaps this is why he worried about people becoming too obedient to the Pope in a time where the exact opposite was the real problem?
Oh, and lest I forget to mention, Abbe Le Floch taught Abp. Lefebvre in seminary, and apparently Abp. Lefebvre created a sort of cult of hero-worship about Le Floch within SSPX circles :rolleyes:
Why am I not surprised that Stevus didn't go dig up his own quote? Stevus, you are an SSPX lapdog / parrot to your very marrow.
The SSPX has more cultish tendencies than I realized at first. I was at my friends' house the other day, who used to be in SSPX, and she had a book about Abp. Lefebvre that calls him on the cover "a modern-day saint." Talk about, to borrow gladius' term, drinking the kewl-aid. Now they do their own canonizations, I guess.
-
(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4531/parrotlapdog.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/231/parrotlapdog.jpg/)
i never heard of that so i google and found they do actyally exist!
-
I just happened to come across some information about Père le Floch, the priest who gives the ill-sounding quote in your sig, Stevus. He was associated with the Action Francaise movement condemned by Pius XI, for the reason that it puts the state above the Church.
Maurras, the leader of Action Francaise, was not Catholic himself but wanted to use Catholicism as a force for order. This pragmatic, state-centered attitude infests France even today.
Abbe Le Floch would not submit to Church teaching and was REMOVED as rector of his seminary by Pius XI. Perhaps this is why he worried about people becoming too obedient to the Pope in a time where the exact opposite was the real problem?
Oh, and lest I forget to mention, Abbe Le Floch taught Abp. Lefebvre in seminary, and apparently Abp. Lefebvre created a sort of cult of hero-worship about Le Floch within SSPX circles :rolleyes:
Why am I not surprised that Stevus didn't go dig up his own quote? Stevus, you are an SSPX lapdog / parrot to your very marrow.
The SSPX has more cultish tendencies than I realized at first. I was at my friends' house the other day, who used to be in SSPX, and she had a book about Abp. Lefebvre that calls him on the cover "a modern-day saint." Talk about, to borrow gladius' term, drinking the kewl-aid. Now they do their own canonizations, I guess.
Firstly he was removed by request of the french government.
Secondly, Action Francais was UNCONDEMNED by Pope Pius XII.
Thirdly. They did not belief in putting the state above the papacy, they were french monarchists who wanted to make Roman Catholiscism the state religion in france again. Restore the monarchy etc.
fourthly, I am astonished you are anti-monarchist.
fifthly, you cited no sources
sixtly, Action Francais after being uncondemned by Pope Pius XII stated they were condemned for political reasons.
You entire hate filled rant sounds like it came from the modernists. You seem to have a hatred of the SSPX.
Oh and Le Floch was suspected of being with Action Francais, even if he was, he was removed by order of the french government. A masonic structure that wanted to preserve the Republic.
-
They did not belief in putting the state above the papacy, they were french monarchists who wanted to make Roman Catholicism the state religion in france again.
Was Charles Maurras the leader? Yes. Did he once say, "A true nationalist places his country above everything"? Yes.
Maurras' perspective was necessarily flawed for he looked at France (and the world) through a necessarily naturalistic lens. How could he, lacking supernatural faith, do otherwise?
I am astonished you are anti-monarchist.
Mike (Raoul) is decidedly NOT anti-monarchist. He is well aware of the prophecies of the Great Monarch and, like all sane men aware of the GM's role in setting things right, very much looks forward to his advent.
-
Raoul, with all due respect, I'm getting tired of your attacks against Archbishop LeFebvre. You like drinking the certain flavor of kewl-aid that some other sedes are gulty of drinking, not giving ABL his due credit for preserving the Mass of all-times. Without him and the SSPX, the SSPV and FSSP wouldn't exist either. And there's a small priestly group in the mid-west (can't think of their name) that also wouldn't exist, as their founder broke away from the Society as well.
Now, was this man you speak of the one who ordained ABL? Because I know people have accused the man who ordained him as being a nut. Even if that were the case, his ordination would still be valid.
I don't mind criticisms of Bishop Fellay. Because let's face it, what Fellay did to Bishop Williamson was wrong. But I do not appreciate any illogical attacks on ABL. I'm not saying I agreed with everything the man did (I think he should have used a pre-1962 Missal, and he originally went along with the Vatican II docuмents, although he later regretted it) but his mistakes aside, the man is in fact a Saint and will be recognized as one after the Crisis is over. You're just being stubborn, Raoul. You'd rather give anonymous sede bishops the credit for preserving Tradition rather than a man who fought as hard as he could to save the Mass that you attend every Sunday.
-
Now, was this man you speak of the one who ordained ABL? Because I know people have accused the man who ordained him as being a nut. Even if that were the case, his ordination would still be valid.
No. His name is Cardinal Lienart, and your understanding is correct -- i.e., even if Lienart was, as some say, a Mason, albeit unknown at the time, such would NOT affect the validity of his actions.
I do not appreciate any illogical attacks on ABL.
I do not think anyone does. Mike (Raoul) can answer for himself, of course, but I imagine he would say his 'attack' is not illogical. If I understand his motive correctly, his OP is about setting (or trying to set) the record straight about Fr. le Floch, etc.
-
you cited no sources...
Neither did you. While I know there was BOTH a condemnation AND a lifting thereof, Mike's failure to provide sources is no more 'grievous' than your own.
-
I
don't mind criticisms of Bishop Fellay. Because let's face it, what Fellay did to Bishop Williamson was wrong. But I do not appreciate any illogical attacks on ABL.
For you, it's "illogical" to say anything against ABL because you are told constantly in your community that he's a saint. Go to France sometime and talk to some sedes and you will see how the other half lives. And when the sedevacantist position becomes OFFICIAL, as it should have become long ago, watch Abp. Lefebvre's reputation plummet.
I doubt anyone will ever say he deliberately sold out the trads, but he will be quietly swept under the rug, probably treated like a doddering uncle no one wants to talk about. He will not be canonized. We can make a bet if you want, if we get to heaven we will resolve it there, unless we both live to see the Church restored. But time has a way of revealing who the real heroes are, and it's impossible to call Abp. Lefebvre that. The contradictory nature of his position and of his sermons is far too apparent. Saints make mistakes, but this is something else, sometimes the way he spoke was so paradoxical that it is reminiscent of the Modernists.
On top of this, he was a bitter enemy of sedes, who sedes now, for some reason, try to enlist into their cause with the famous "deathbed conversion" ( see under: Malachi Martin, Napoleon, George Washington, John XXIII ).
I hope the man is in heaven, but we don't need him as a sede mascot. He was famous in his time, but time will reveal there were others who were greater and who were forced into the shadows by the somewhat artificial light of Abp. Lefebvre -- believe me, he would not have been as famous as he was if he were teaching the FULL truth. The condition for being the "hero who saves the Church" and for getting all that press was he had to be compromised, intentionally or not. Sad but true. This is a time where the devil has full media control.
Perhaps he is a glass-half-empty, glass-half-full figure. You either see him as someone who helped preserved the Mass, or else someone who dragged trads kicking and screaming back into the false church in Rome. He is hard to condemn, but equally hard to lionize, sort of like Liberius when he was allegedly against Athanasius ( a good comparison, since Liberius is considered a saint by some but officially is not ).
-
Firstly he was removed by request of the french government.
Are you sure of this? I once read that Fr. Le Floch renounced as a way of protesting because of the resignation (dismissal?) of his friend Card. Billot, but I don´t really know if the source is trust worthy.
Secondly, Action Francais was UNCONDEMNED by Pope Pius XII.
Because they asked for it and repented.
FWIW, the first condemnation of Maurras was made by St. Pius X himself, and Benedict XV didn´t want to condemn L´Action Francaise during the first world war for prudential reasons, something that was done later by Pius XI who called L´action "political modernism".
FWIW2: Maurras himself in his deathbed recognized the condemnation was correct.
Thirdly. They did not belief in putting the state above the papacy, they were french monarchists who wanted to make Roman Catholiscism the state religion in france again. Restore the monarchy etc.
Sincerely I never heard this before.
fourthly, I am astonished you are anti-monarchist.
The fact someone is against monarchy doesn´t mean he supports democracy or liberalism. Primo de Rivera is an example of this.
fifthly, you cited no sources
This includes me of course... if you wish I can check it later and quote something here. The books I´ve read about this are: "Primacy of the spiritual" of Maritain (I perfectly know who was Maritain... but the book dates from the late ´20 and if I´m not wrong Pius XI himself asked him to write it), and then the docuмents of the Popes related to the condemnation (Boucaren has an interesting resume of all of them in his "Canon law digest"). The fact that Maurras recognized the condemnation was just is taken from a book written by the priest who administered him the last Sacraments.
sixtly, Action Francais after being uncondemned by Pope Pius XII stated they were condemned for political reasons.
The question is if the condemnation was made for prudential reasons or because of doctrinal reasons. I think it was the last one.
Oh and Le Floch was suspected of being with Action Francais, even if he was, he was removed by order of the french government. A masonic structure that wanted to preserve the Republic.
No doubts many Catholics had sympathies with L´Action but the Church reproved it.
Cristian
-
Lord Phan said:
Firstly he was removed by request of the french government.
He was removed by Pius XI.
Secondly, Action Francais was UNCONDEMNED by Pope Pius XII.
Refer to Cristian's post above, I had never heard about this.
Thirdly. They did not belief in putting the state above the papacy, they were french monarchists who wanted to make Roman Catholiscism the state religion in france again. Restore the monarchy etc.
From the way they talk, the suggestion is that the monarchy would subordinate the Church rather than the other way around. The Action Francaise has a scent of statism, of Gallicanized fascism. It is very subtle, but something is not quite right about it, in my opinion, an extra-Catholic movement that grudgingly supports Catholicism for political reasons? No.
It's good that it's against Masonry and Jewry, but that is no reason to compromise and to hitch our wagon to an agnostic, politicized, statist star. I hope someone out there understands that sentence.
Even the king, should he have arisen, would probably have been a puppet of Maurras, who was the real intellectual leader of that movement -- and an agnostic. That is the problem, Catholicism is de-spiritualized and turned into a "force for order and civilization" only, it's heartless and wrong. I believe if Action Francaise were successful, Catholicism would quickly grow cold under their auspices, because there is an unpleasant kind of fascist smell to it.
I will say this, we are opening a huge can of worms here and this is something I want to research further. I once defended Action Francaise here, I believe, but the priest I know in France is always vehemently against it. For a while this confused me. Then I saw why -- in France, there is a skinhead-type network infiltrating trad Catholicism, that seems to emanate from the Action Francaise mentality. Everything is about the state, about organization and rule. To a casual observer, it may just sound like the usual patriotism you might have heard in Catholic Spain... But it's not, it smacks more of communism and fascism, there is a kind of dehumanized collectivist spirit that I pick up on there.
fourthly, I am astonished you are anti-monarchist.
From what I have heard about Action Francaise, I believe it is Gallican-tainted and puts the monarchy above the papacy, and that is never what I have been about. I admit though, that is hearsay, an impression, and I have to study this more. Now is the time, because it has just hit me that this controversy has important consequences for the future, there is something very significant going on here.
As for whether I hate SSPX, I hate compromise and false theology, and for that reason I hate the SSPX. However, since they probably don't teeter over into heresy, I have to recognize them as Catholics and love them for that reason, not the organization but the people :farmer:
-
I'm sorry my writing is so sloppy, I am so flooded with ideas and thoughts that I'm literally shaking. I think I'm seeing how the anti-Christ will arise so soon after the Great Monarch, and this is why. The devil is already setting it up. This is what Action Francaise is about, it's like a foreshadowing. This subject, I now realize, is absolutely CRUCIAL, I want to lock myself in the house and read for months.
With Action Francaise, you can see how there are certain good elements but yet it feels wrong, spiritually wrong, in a very subtle way.
So how does Satan twist the glorious Restoration into a sick and monstrous freakshow so soon? Here is your answer:
After the Monarch dies, Satan will use his agents to pervert the Great Monarch's kingdom with a kind of super-macho, statist, fascist attitude. He will not have to work hard, he will just have to tweak the spirit of people just a little to set them on the wrong course.
Where the Catholics under the Monarch were MASCULINE, Satan will make them MACHO --
Where the Catholics under the Monarch were FEARLESS, Satan will turn that into HARDNESS AND LACK OF CHARITY AND VIOLENCE FOR THE SAKE OF VIOLENCE;
Where the Catholics under the Monarch LOVED THEIR ENEMIES even during wartime, Satan will turn that into HATE AND PRIDE, not just for enemies but for each other;
Where the Catholics under the Monarch were PATRIOTIC, Satan will turn that into WORSHIP OF THE STATE AND OF STATE POWER ABOVE GOD
Look what a perfect transition this is to Anti-Christ!
He will be a weakling whose tough talk and taste for violence and atrocity masks his own cowardice. He will be an Anti-Great-Monarch as well as the Anti-Christ. The Monarch will be tough but gentle and loving and pious, a true Catholic man, while the Anti-Christ will be a perverted wimp hiding behind his thugs. This is how I feel about the skinheads as well, that they are really weak and they try to hide it behind overdone rhetoric.
I'm not saying this is an official prophecy or that I had a vision, these are just ideas, but they're coming to me in a wave.
-
IMO, the GM will die in battle (after 25 years or so as the ruler of the world), vanquished by the rising Antichrist, whose reign of three and one half years will begin once the GM is killed. Like Josias, the GM will receive a mortal wound on the battlefield at Megiddo, but will give up the ghost on Mount Olivet.
-
I'm probably going too fast for people and making connections that they don't see yet.
I don't know how to explain it though. It has to do with the French "scene." The French traditional scene is an entirely different world than the American one. More is happening there, there is more ferment. This is ALL about France, the prophecies are coming true. A week ago, I had a fantasy about France, now I have gotten in contact with the French and know that many brilliant Catholics really exist there, and a revolution is about to happen. In America, if traditionalism is predominantly about older ladies, in France it's all hyper-intellectual young men. That is just one difference. I have been fighting jealousy, it's like I've discovered a whole secret colony of people smarter and more pious than me, ha ha.
The problem is that there is a false nationalist attitude infecting European Catholicism ( I say "false" because patriotism in itself is not bad, it's good to be patriotic about France ). Some of them are skinheads. To listen to some of these people talk, you would have no idea that they had anything more than a nominal faith. Everything is about the state, about the government. It's clear to me now that this is the new offshoot of Action Francaise, a virulent strain of Action Francaise.
The devil knows very well that France is the scene of his defeat. So he is doing everything he can to infect it with the wrong kind of ideas.
I recommend reading this thread at Ignis Ardens about Vincent Reynouard, who was jailed for denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst, but who also admires National Socialism and its "natural law," whatever that means... A very contradictory and disturbing figure. Some people want to defend him as a martyr since he is questioning the major shibboleth of our times, but another part is revolted by his support for the nαzιs. I don't know who it is out there that is trying to associate Catholics with nαzιs, but it won't work. It certainly won't work on this half-Polock.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=483
-
gladius_veritatis said:
IMO, the GM will die in battle (after 25 years or so as the ruler of the world), vanquished by the rising Antichrist, whose reign of three and one half years will begin once the GM is killed. Like Josias, the GM will receive a mortal wound on the battlefield at Megiddo, but will give up the ghost on Mount Olivet.
Not by the Antichrist himself, but by those who are preparing the way for him, would be my guess, though it's really the same difference. The Monarch is literally invincible while he is fulfilling the prophecies, he is protected by God Himself... This will strike such terror into people that no army can stand up to him, they will sense that he is invulnerable. Therefore, I believe he can only be killed by a betrayal, not by normal means in battle. Woe to the one who betrays him. Since the Monarch is a mirror of a certain facet of Christ ( Christ as conqueror, as avenger ) he will almost certainly meet with his Judas.
I read somewhere, in one of the Great Monarch prophecies, that the Antichrist will be born during the reign of the Angelic Pastor. Now, the Angelic Pastor works contemporaneously with the Monarch, and will likewise be an invulnerable, miracle-working, apocalyptic and unheard-of figure ( to the point he can stroll casually through scenes of carnage and war and not be touched by a bullet, and will convert enemy soldiers with his mere presence ). That means that the fall of the Restored Church will be very quick, probably within 30 years of the height of the Restoration. Another prophecy says the people will show themselves "ungrateful" for what the Monarch did and this will unleash Anti-Christ.
-
Let me boil it down further -- what does the devil want? To stop the Monarch from arising. So what will he do to make this happen? He will take advantage of the similarities of the Monarch with Hitler ( being against the Jews ) and try to associate French Catholic monarchism with nαzιsm. He has got his agents and plants in there doing just that. He wants to make sure that, in the popular imagination, "reactionary" Catholics are seen as brutal nαzιs, because this will keep people from joining with us. It doesn't get any more crude and obvious, folks. More guilt by association tactics.
THIS is how the devil uses Action Francaise and its statist offshoots. He uses Catholicism for his own ends but he twists it. Action Francaise hides behind all the right ideas -- the monarchy, the Catholic state, the fight against ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry -- but it feels unstable, like at any moment they can just cut out the Catholicism part, leaving only the state...
This explains the discomfort that many feel with Action Francaise, why it is so alienating. Yes, it tells a lot of the truth, but something isn't quite right, the attitude is sinister, insincere, heartless, it smacks of communism and fascism, of the collective.
-
Its funny Raoul- I thought your confirmation would bring you the gifts of the Holy Ghost but you expose none of them in your comments here. Unfortunately you're coming off as severely prideful. You are very intelligent, but intelligence can be used by satan for evil. I will pray for you a little more.
"I'm probably going too fast for people and making connections that they don't see yet. "
"I think I'm seeing how the anti-Christ will arise so soon after the Great Monarch, and this is why."
"I'm not saying this is an official prophecy or that I had a vision, these are just ideas, but they're coming to me in a wave."
Its not that what you're saying is wrong (Because in essence you're just reciting quotes you've read in your own words),... No that is not wrong; the point is is that you and I are 'no ones'- you're not even a priest. I don't know... but there's something off-putting about the way you're posing these "ideas" (Thesaurus.com: visions, prophesy, revelations) ... We can read prophesy, but its interpretation should only be taken so far within ourselves. We shouldn't use it and believe we understand "everything". Thats not what prophesy is designed for.
And you attack ABL only because it serves your sede-mindedness Raoul- face it. It is not something unexpected from you. You attack his person so that you can "feel" more correct and on the right side. Its only natural. Again, you're very intelligent- but it seems like the devil is attacking you through your pride.... ?
-
First off, Raoul, how do you know that ABL is a loved figure in my community? On the contrary, actually. Believe me, ABL is practically anything but loved where I live. I may have access to two TLMs, but both are over two hours away. I live in a pretty modernist part of the south where just about every Catholic is a Novus Ordite. So I actually live in an area where I have to hear nothing but criticisms of him, not praise.
And I think s2srea has a point. The reason you criticize LeFebvre is so you can make your stance look good. And no offense Raoul, but on the subject of Archbishop LeFebvre you need to get your facts straight. ABL was not an enemy of sedes. He sympathized towards sedes, the only reason you and other sedes see him as an anti-sede is because he chose not to declare Paul VI or JPII as an anti-pope. And how the HECK did he drag people into the Vatican II Church? He never celebrated the Novus Ordo, nor did he have any desire to. Again, you need to get your facts straight on this matter, otherwise you argumnt looks extremely weak.
Also, please explain to me how sedevacantism will be declared a fact. Can you prove it's a fact? No, you cannot. Not unless God revealed to you that He has a preference, and so far we don't know which stance God prefers. I cannot be 100% certain that my non-sede stance is a fact. I am very well aware that the sede stance may be right, I'm just not ready to declare Benedict an anti-pope (although I will concede that Paul VI was an anti-pope). Back to the original subject, I'd be willing to bet, Raoul, that the parish you attend on Sundays wouldn't exist if not for LeFebvre.
-
The Monarch is literally invincible while he is fulfilling the prophecies, he is protected by God Himself...
This has nothing to do with the end of his reign, about which it is said he will go to the Holy Land and lay down his crown upon the Mount of Olives.
Anyway, what will be will be...and it will all happen according to the most holy and adorable will of God.
-
Now, was this man you speak of the one who ordained ABL? Because I know people have accused the man who ordained him as being a nut. Even if that were the case, his ordination would still be valid.
No. His name is Cardinal Lienart, and your understanding is correct -- i.e., even if Lienart was, as some say, a Mason, albeit unknown at the time, such would NOT affect the validity of his actions.
I do not appreciate any illogical attacks on ABL.
I do not think anyone does. Mike (Raoul) can answer for himself, of course, but I imagine he would say his 'attack' is not illogical. If I understand his motive correctly, his OP is about setting (or trying to set) the record straight about Fr. le Floch, etc.
This is such a tired out argument. He was a Freemason, and there's really no doubt about that anymore. That was the reason Father Luigi Villa got all his teeth knocked out, was because he specifically revealed that Lienart was a mason.
But, this argument still holds no water, because when a bishop is ordained, he receives the "fullness of orders." So even if Lienart had a defect in intention, there were two other bishops with him when Archbishop Lefevbre was made a bishop, and they conferred the sacrament. It's highly unlikely that the other two bishops there were Freemasons as well. Their names were not on the List of the Peccorelli.
-
Raoul,
I already knew this story and so I did not fail to "dig" around my quote. However, what you have presented is a very misleading account of what happened.
The quote stands as a very true and prophetic observation. When you know the full story of what happened to Fr. LeFloch, it is very sad, but not surprising.
I will let John Vennari tell the tale...
http://www.cfnews.org/LefebvreBio.htm
Marcel Goes to Rome
In 1919, when Marcel announced his intention to become a priest, his father cautioned him against studying at his home diocese at Lille. Bishop Lienart, the local ordinary, displayed a progressivist frame of mind, and Marcel’s father was uneasy with the spirit of the diocesan seminary. So at the advice of the renowned Father Collins, Marcel followed his older brother Rene into the French Seminary in Rome. This was a decisive moment in the formation of Marcel Lefebvre for it was here that he came under the influence of Father Le Floch.
Father Henri Le Floch was a teacher whom one would give his eye-teeth to be formed under. Thoroughly Catholic, thoroughly committed to the scholasticism of Saint Thomas, thoroughly anti-liberal and anti-Modernist, thoroughly imbued with the Roman school of theology, and with the competence to convey these truths so they be central to one’s life, Father Le Floch trained his men. Archbishop Lefebvre readily admitted that were it not for the solid formation he received from Father Le Floch, he too might have succuмbed to the creeping liberalism of the age.
The Archbishop said at his September 23, 1979 Jubilee sermon, “I will never thank God enough for allowing me to know that extraordinary man.” He said of Father Le Floch:
“He was the one who taught us what the popes were to the world and the Church, what they had taught for a century and a half against liberalism, modernism and Communism, the whole doctrine of the Church on these topics. He really made us understand and share in this battle of the Popes to preserve the world and the Church from these scourges which plague us today. That was a revelation to me.”
Archbishop Lefebvre continued:
“I listened to what the older students were talking about. I listened to their reactions and especially to what my professors and Superior had taught me. And I realized that in fact I had quite a few wrong ideas ... I was very pleased to learn the truth, happy to learn that I had been wrong, that I had to change my way of thinking about certain things, especially in studying the encyclicals of the Popes, which showed us all the modern errors, those magnificent encyclicals of the Popes up to St. Pius X and Pius XI.
“... For me it was a complete revelation. And that was how the desire was quietly born to conform our judgment to that of the Popes. We used to say to ourselves: how did the Popes judge these events, ideas, men and times? And Fr. Le Floch showed us clearly what the main ideas of the various Popes were: always the same thing, exactly the same in their encyclicals. That showed us ... how we should look at history ... And consequently it stayed with us.”[2]
Elsewhere Archbishop said that thanks to Father Le Floch, “We were mobilized against this dreadful liberalism.”[3]
“Think With the Church”
Father Le Floch inculcated into the students the key principle, “Sentire cuм Ecclesia” — Think with the Church. Think as the Church thinks, judge as the Popes judged, in light of St. Thomas Aquinas, “leaving aside all personal ideas in order to embrace the mind of the Church.”
In this environment, Marcel cut his teeth on the magnificent teaching of the Popes from the 19th and early 20th Century, which condemned the Masonic modern world born from the French Revolution. He learned that evil principles, no matter how seductively dressed, are evil nonetheless. These principles cause the ruin of souls, the destruction of society, and rob Our Lord of His Rights as King and Redeemer.
Marcel was privileged to attend the seminary’s “St. Thomas Lectures”. They were designed to stimulate the philosophy and theology student’s tastes for studying contemporary questions (“judge as the Church judges”) in the light of Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Popes.
At one such lecture, in the presence of Archbishop Chollet of Cambrai, Father George Michel put the Masonic Declaration of the Rights of Man on trial. After this brilliant presentation, Archbishop Chollet summarized: “God alone is a pure right ... originally we have nothing but debts: we have rights precisely to help us pay our debts.” The Biography comments, “This beautifully expressed the objective nature of rights and reaffirmed the primacy of the common good — both of which were ideas ignored by the liberal individualism of the Revolution”.
The anti-revolutionary training of the seminarians did not escape the notice of European governments. A tragic conflict ensued that devastated young Marcel, and showed him at an early age the malice of the liberals.
The Ax Falls on Father Le Floch
The French Seminary produced a formidable Catholic clergy who defied the liberal spirit of the age. Many of those trained in the French Seminary in Rome would become bishops. The last thing wanted by the Masonic government of France was an army of bishops and priests tearing the mask off their liberal pretensions. It could bring down their whole world. It could ruin everything. Something had to be done.
Already, France’s government was in uproar over the French Seminary where “political ideas which go against the laws of the Republic are flourishing.” On March 10, 1925, France’s Cardinals and Bishops issued a declaration on the injustice of the secular laws and the “steps to be taken against them.” Then in France’s Chamber of Deputies on March 20, the bishop’s declaration was denounced as coming “dir-ectly from the French Seminary in Rome.” With disgust, the French politicians quoted an extract from Father George Michel’s St. Thomas Lecture: “The State has the duty to recognize the Cath-olic religions as the sole true form of divine worship ... and to profess it publicly”, and to protect it, “if necessary with the armed forces.” This caused shrieks of horror from those present. A talk by Father Lucien Lefebvre[4] was quoted with equal loathing: “The State has no rights over education.” The politicians were furious. “That is the respect they have for the secular laws”, one of them said.
Shortly after, the French government pressured Pope Pius XI to “tone down” the French seminary’s counter-revolutionary program. In one of his worst decisions — along with the suppression of Padre Pio and the decision that led to the slaughter of the Mexican Cristeros — Pius XI yielded and dismissed Father Le Floch: despite the fact that he was a model Rector since 1904; despite the fact that he was revered by students and former students who were now eminent Churchmen; des-pite the fact that an independent probe showed Father Le Floch to be faithful to Catholic doctrine without crease.[5] This occurred around the same time Pius XI condemned Action Francais, an anti-liberalism organization ad-mired by Pope Saint Pius X[6] that Pope Pius XII sought unsuccessfully to resurrect.[7]
Marcel was not at the seminary for Father Le Floch’s tribulation. Away on mandatory military service, he learned the details through heartbreaking letters from fellow students. He returned to find the atmosphere of the French Seminary changed. Father Le Floch was gone. No longer were the seminarians trained for combat with the modern world, but more in a spirit of detente. It was Marcel’s first taste of opposition to Catholic principles from within the Church.
Nonetheless, Providence had arranged that Marcel study at the French Seminary just in time. He was trained during the final years of Father Le Floch’s regime. He received solid Catholic principles that would direct him for the rest of his life, and prepare him for future battles that, as a young seminarian, he would hardly dream possible.