Author Topic: The Novus Ordo is Poisoned, and Catholics must reject it. (Read 1723 times)

Hewkonian · « **on:** August 22, 2024, 03:06:19 PM »

Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - On The Novus Ordo Missae [the New Mass]

“And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)

“I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass." (Conference April 11, 1990)

“The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.” (Spiritual Journey, p. ix)

“It is the new Mass in itself. It is not the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes. It doesn’t change anything in the rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants. That is clear! (April 11, 1990)

“This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)

“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.…All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.” (The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979)

“… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here:
"It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to Protestantism,”

and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecuмenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecuмenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecuмenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecuмenist.” (Conference, April 11, 1990)

"This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union — adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ... The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests." (Homily preached at Lille, August29, 1976)

“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)

“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and Canon Law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch. 4)

“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat)

“We must not forget that the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, the reforms of the Bible, the changes in the internal structure of the Church, of the constitution of the Church—all these things are a result of the ecuмenical spirit. That is clear, since Protestants were present for the changes in the Mass—six Protestant ministers were photographed with Pope Paul VI who thanked them for having come to participate in the liturgical commission, which transformed our Catholic Mass! Everything was done in this ecuмenical spirit: liturgical reforms, catechetical reforms, an ecuмenical Bible—which is sold in the bookstore at the Vatican. There was then, a considerable Protestant influence.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)

“…if they are going to the New Mass—slowly, slowly they change their mind and become, slowly, slowly Protestant. It is very dangerous to go to the New Mass regularly, each week, because the New Mass is not some accidental change, but it is a whole orientation, a new definition of the Mass. It has not the same definition as the True Mass.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)

“… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981)

“The consequences of this state of mind or spirit spread within the Church, inside the Church, are deplorable, and are ruining and sapping the spiritual vitality of the Church. In conscience, all we can do is turn priests and faithful away from using the Novus Ordo Missae if we wish that the complete and whole Catholic Faith remains still living.” (Letter to John Paul II, April 5, 1983 - Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference #1, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, April 24, 1983)

In many cases, Masses by their translation, by the intention (of the celebrant), for many reasons are probably no longer valid. But, nevertheless, personally, I have always said, in fact, that if the Mass was said according to the rite approved by Pope Paul VI, in Latin, and with the intention of doing what the Church does, and, obviously, with the (valid) matter also, by a priest who is a real Catholic priest, I think that the Mass is in effect valid, although it does not necessarily follow that because it is valid we must inevitably attend it. ...
My judgment is, given that this [New] Mass, as I had occasion to remark when interrogated by the Holy Office, is that this Mass is a Mass which has been poisoned, and one cannot oblige a person in conscience to receive poison. Consequently, if these people do not wish to go to Mass on Sunday, for example, because they are aware that it is a poison for their souls, they are certainly not committing a mortal sin. ...
What we can say, objectively, as a general rule, is that it is a danger to the faith to attend such Masses. Subjectively, we must take into consideration the individual, and consequently we must know how to judge as a (good) pastor and not only purely in an objective manner, as if we had nothing to do with human beings who find themselves by consequences in diverse circuмstances. ... Obviously, the orthodoxy of the priest does not change the quality or the situation of the New Mass. (Even if a priest is well intentioned, a doubtful Mass will remain doubtful.) This is what they tell me in Rome: "You say that the Mass of the Pope is not good; you say that the Mass of certain cardinals is not good." I must reply "yes," because this concerns an objective question, that this Mass was made with the help of Protestants, finalized in a spirit of ecuмenical protestantism, and that the essential elements of the Mass are tainted more or less. Consequently, the faith is no longer expressed as it should be expressed, in such a way that the people finish by having an ecuмenical spirit and a Protestant spirit, which is excessively dangerous. (Interview with the Houston Chronicle, May 1983)

"... we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. For if the most holy Church has wished to guard throughout the centuries this precious treasure which She has given us of the rite of Holy Mass which was canonized by Saint Pius V, it has not been without purpose. It is because this Mass contains our whole faith, the whole Catholic Faith: faith in the Most Holy Trinity, faith in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Redemption of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which flowed for the redemption of our sins, faith in supernatural grace, which comes to us from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which comes to us from the Cross, which comes to us through all the Sacraments.

This is what we believe. This is what we believe in celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of all time. It is a lesson of faith and at the same time a source of our faith, indispensable for us in this age when our faith is attacked from all sides. We have need of this true Mass, of this Mass of all time of this Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ really to fill our souls with the Holy Ghost and with the strength of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion." (Ordination Sermon, July 29, 1976)

[As we], on the other hand, do not cease to affirm: the new Mass has been made in collaboration with the Protestants in order to please them; it still has a Protestant definition and produces Protestants. These reasons are more than sufficient for not giving it the titles reserved to the Catholic Mass of all time in its various rites. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1983)

The New Mass is Intrinsically Evil

In April 1974, before the Archbishop had reached a decision about the New Mass, he stated:
“Is the Mass really intrinsically evil? If the Mass was intrinsically evil, intrinsically, I say, well one cannot do an intrinsically evil act, an intrinsically evil act is always forbidden: But if the Mass is not intrinsically evil, but is evil by circuмstances, by what surrounds it, by certain prayers, because the Mass is not what it should be, and so as circuмstances can change, can be modified, ... it is obvious that with them, I think it is better to abstain, not to go to Mass for a whole month rather than go to Masses like that, that's for sure!”

By June 1981, the Archbishop had reached a conclusion on the New Mass and said:
“…that the evil in the New Mass is truly intrinsic, in the text … and not only something purely extrinsic, [in the abuses], this is certain. Precisely by this general effect which diminishes the proclamation of our faith, this diminution is present everywhere, in the words and in the actions. They wanted to be ecuмenical to such a point, to bring themselves closer to the Protestants in order to pray with them, that in the end they no longer affirm the Faith. And that is very grave. This diminution is excessively grave for our faith, how can it be otherwise? … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.” (pp. 224 in Dr. David Allen White’s, The Horn of the Unicorn).

Archbishop’s conferences on the New Mass on June 23/24/25, 1981:
“The liturgical reform consisted ultimately in taking a Protestant text, while affirming that one does not deny the truths the Protestants deny and, by virtue of the negation of these truths, they made this Novus Ordo…. the modernist liturgists who entered the Church found nothing better than to take the Protestant text and say: We do not deny the truths that the Protestants deny ... We do not deny the truths, but we take the same text, because this text has no formal heretical text! These texts were made by virtue of the negation of these truths, but they do not explicitly deny them, so they then say: We are not doing something heretical by taking these texts, but us, we do not deny the truths that the Protestants deny! ... I do not see how one can say: This [liturgical] reform is only evil in a purely accidental way, in a purely external or extrinsic way. In my opinion, the protestant reform, this Mass of Taizé is certainly evil because it no longer affirms truths … it is a poisoned mass. A poisoned mass, because when one no longer affirms the truly Catholic truths of the Mass, as the Protestants wanted, little by little faith in these truths also disappears. This, I would say, is so obvious, so obvious in all the consequences...”

“…we cannot, in three conferences, say everything on internal characteristics, on the similarities with Protestant texts in an ecuмenical spirit, and thus of the danger which the [New] Mass entails for the Faith because of this diminution of the affirmation of the faith, a diminution of the affirmation of the dogmas which are essential to the Mass.… it [the New Mass] is not formally heretical, but indirectly it favors heresy because it puts you in a climate that no longer affirms the fundamental truths of the Mass , which no longer sufficiently affirms the fundamental truths of the Holy Mass.”

“… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...

I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any asceticism, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go."

Hewkonian · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2024, 03:07:51 PM »

Quotes by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on the Doubtfulness of the Conciliar Sacraments

Archbishop Lefebvre: I sincerely believe that it is the Council which is at the back of all this since many of the bishops … had never studied Thomist philosophy and so do not know what a definition is. For them, there is no such thing as essence; nothing is defined any longer; one expresses or describes something, but never defines it. Moreover, this lack of philosophy was patent throughout the whole Council. I believe this to be the reason why the Council was a mass of ambiguities, vagueness, and sentimentality, things which now clearly admit all interpretations and have left all doors open. (Archbishop Lefebvre, A Bishop Speaks to Us, 1972)

1972

… that is how things stand today. It is evangelization which predominates, no longer sanctification. So, yet another bad definition of the priest, and so long as the true definition is no longer given, all the consequences must be borne. The same is true of all the sacraments. Consider all the sacraments one after the other; they are no longer defined as in the past. (Archbishop Lefebvre, A Bishop Speaks to Us, 1972)

1974

It can happen that the Sacraments are not valid. In any case it can occur that the Sacraments are doubtfully valid, that is, that they are doubtful. For the holy Chrism is the matter of the Sacrament of Confirmation, and today, unfortunately, it is heard that the holy Chrism is sometimes made with oils which, according to what the writers of theology have taught us—these are not personal feelings—these matters are doubtful. We have always been taught that not just any oil can be used to make the holy Chrism. www.angelusonline.org/index.phpsection=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=1311

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, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it. All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments…This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration of 1974)

1975

I know you do not want priests who may administer Sacraments invalidly.

Footnote: 3. With respect to Sacraments of doubtful validity, today bishops rarely confirm. They delegate their vicars-general or other priests, and many of these may change the authorized formulae. Because the particular sacramental grace of each Sacrament has to be signified explicitly and because many of these changes in wording do not signify the Sacrament in question, it follows that the Sacrament is doubtfully valid. It is not permissible to toy with the formulae of the Sacraments, just as in the Sacrifice of the Mass we may not tamper with the wording of the Consecration. It is necessary to perform as the Church has always intended. www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2285

It is because we believe that our whole Faith is endangered by the post-Conciliar reforms and changes that it is our duty to disobey, and to maintain the traditions of our Faith. The greatest service we can render to the Catholic Church, to Peter’s successor, to the salvation of souls and of our own, is to say “No” to the reformed Liberal Church, because we believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God made Man, Who is neither Liberal nor reformable. Letter to Friends and Benefactors, September 1975

1976

The balance-sheet for the ten years following the Council is catastrophic in all departments. Churchmen, herein following numerous bad examples, thought that they could replace what Our Lord instituted with institutions better suited to the modern world, forgetting that Jesus Christ is God “yesterday, today and for ever” (Heb. 13:8), and that His Work is suited to all times and to all men. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1976)

In these critical moments, we must remain with that which is surest. We must avoid doubtful things. We must make our stand on things that are certain, absolutely certain, without a thousandth per cent of doubt: our Creed, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin. We cannot go wrong there. www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/ArchbishopLefebvre/Sermon_by_Archbishop_Lefebvre_on_May_2_1976.htm

The union desired by these Liberal Catholics, a union between the Church and the Revolution and subversion is, for the Church, an adulterous union, adulterous. And that adulterous union can produce only bastards. And who are those bastards? They are our rites: the rite of Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments-we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them. The priests coming out of the seminaries do not themselves know what they are. In Rome it was the Archbishop of Cincinnati who said: "Why are there no more vocations? Because the Church no longer knows what a priest is." How then can She still form priests if She does not know what a priest is? The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests. They do not know what they are. They do not know that they were made to go up to the altar to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to give Jesus Christ to souls, and to call souls to Jesus Christ. That is what a priest is. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon in Lille, France 1976)

It is for that that Ecône remains in being, it is for that that Ecône exists, because we believe that what the Catholics have taught, what the Popes have taught, what the Councils have taught for twenty centuries, we cannot possibly abandon. We cannot possibly change our faith: we have our Credo, and we will keep it till we die. We cannot change our Credo, we cannot change the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we cannot change our Sacraments, changing them into human works, purely human, which no longer carry the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ordination Sermon of Fr. Denis Roch 1976)

1977

“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this New Rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)

The important thing is to save the Catholic Faith inscribed in our catechisms, to save the means of living it by the grace of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments, to save the means of passing it on to future generations through Catholic schools and seminaries. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, October 1977)

1978

Satan, the father of lies, as Our Lord Jesus calls him, has the extraordinary talent of finding out some words, to which he assigns a new meaning so that from their ambiguity, he achieves acceptance of the destructive falsehood which overthrows the best established societies. He found it in this “ecuмenism” of the Council which has created an ecuмenical liturgy, an ecuмenical Bible, and ecuмenical catechism, uniting truth and falsehood – marrying the true and the false. The most disastrous result of this marriage is the Catholic-Protestant Mass, the poisoned source afterwards yielding countless ravages: relinquishment of the Church, of the true Faith, sacrileges, tearing of the unity of the Church, proliferation of diverse sorts of creeds unworthy of the Church. ... The ecuмencial Mass leads logically to apostasy. One cannot serve two masters, one cannot nourish oneself indifferently from truth or falsehood. One must, at all costs, remain bound to truth without mingling. Pope Pius IX vigorously denounced these liberal Catholics who believe they can unite falsehood and truth, good and evil, in order to please their contemporary fellowmen. Whether this poisoned ecuмenism reaches us through the hierarchy or not, the channel is not important – it is the poison that one must refuse to swallow. It is a matter of strict obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Church of all times, to all the successors of Peter. We will, therefore, keep the Catholic liturgy, the Catholic Bible and Catechism. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1978)

My dear friends, we have been betrayed. Betrayed by all of those who ought to be giving us the Truth, who ought to be teaching the Ten Commandments, who ought to be teaching us the true Catechism, who ought to be giving us the true Mass – the one that the Church has always loved; the one that was said by the Saints; the one that has sanctified generations and generations! Likewise, they must give us all the Sacraments, without any doubt concerning their validity, Sacraments which are certainly valid. It is a duty for us to ask them for these things and they have a duty to give them to us. [...] We have the duty not to collaborate in the Church's destruction. But, on the contrary, to work – to work ardently, calmly, serenely, for the Church's construction, for the re-construction of the Church, for the preservation of the Church. Each one of you can do your duty in this regard-in your villages, in your parishes, in your institutions, in your professions – wherever you are. Set up true parishes, Catholic parishes. And let these Catholic parishes be confided to true priests. (Sermon - Ordinations June 29, 1978)

1979

Apologia Vol. I
Preface and Footnote [by Michael Davies]:

The Archbishop appreciated that the liturgical reform in particular must inevitably compromise Catholic teaching on the priesthood and the Mass, the twin pillars upon which our faith is built.1 The sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers had also realized that if they could undermine the priesthood there would be no Mass and the Church would be destroyed. The Archbishop founded the Society of St. Pius X with its seminary at Econe not as an act of rebellion but to perpetuate the Catholic priesthood, and for no other purpose.

1. Let anyone who doubts this compare the new and old rites of ordination. A detailed comparison has been made in my book The Order of Melchisedech. sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Introduction.htm

The majority of Catholics find themselves either without priests or directed by priests who no longer have the Catholic faith. Indeed, where priests are less than forty years old, and there are few of these, they have been badly trained in groups of formation that have a Modernist, Protestant, even Marxist spirit. If priests are older, they are using catechisms replete with errors, even heresies, and they use ecuмenical Bibles to instruct their parishioners. The extent of the disaster is enormous. We rejoice at your insistence that the priest must be holy. But who will give him holiness if the seminaries have bad teachers? If the Church is to be renewed the priesthood must be renewed at all costs, and so, accordingly, must the seminaries. But true seminaries cannot be established without restoring the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the spirit defined by the Council of Trent, and at the same time restoring the Sacraments and the entire Liturgy in this same spirit. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Pope John Paul II, 25 April 1979, Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume II)

1980

But one cannot change what Jesus Christ has established. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, the Creed, our catechism, the Sacred Scriptures - all come from Jesus Christ. To change them is to change the establishment of Jesus Christ. Impossible! One cannot say that the Church has been mistaken; if something is wrong one must look for the reason somewhere, but not in the Church. They also say that the Church must change as modem man changes, that as man has a new way of life, so too the Church must have another doctrine - a new Mass, new Sacraments, a new catechism, new seminaries - and, in this way, everything has gone to ruin. Everything has been ruined! ... The Church is hardly recognizable today. The ceremonies - the half - Protestant, half-Catholic liturgy - are a circus; it is no longer a Mystery. The Sacred Mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - a great Mystery, heavenly and sublime - is no longer considered such. (Archbishop Lefebvre, "What is Happening in the Church?" Venice 1980)

We must refuse to compromise with those who deny the Divinity of Our Lord, or with any false Ecuмenism. We must fight against atheism and laicism in order to help Our Lord to reign over families and over society. We must protect the worship of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Sacraments instituted by Our Lord, practicing them according to the rites honored by twenty centuries of tradition. Thus we will properly honor Our Lord, and thus be assured of receiving His grace. ... It is because the novelties which have invaded the Church since the Council diminish the adoration and the honor due to Our Lord, and implicitly throw doubt upon His divinity, that we refuse them. These novelties do not come from the Holy Ghost, nor from His Church, but from those who are imbued with the spirit of Modernism, and with all the errors which convey this spirit, condemned with so much courage and energy by St. Pius X. This holy Pope said to the bishops of France with regard to the Sillon movement: “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but the men of tradition.” ... The Church cannot content herself with doubtful Sacraments nor with ambiguous teaching. Those who have introduced these doubts and this ambiguity are not disciples of the Church. Whatever their intentions may have been, they in fact worked against the Church. The disastrous results of their industry exceed the worst examinings, and are not lessened by the apparent exceptions of a few regions. When Luther introduced the vernacular into the liturgy, the crowds rushed into the churches. But later? It is consoling to note that in the Catholic world, the sense of faith of the faithful rejects these novelties and attaches itself to Tradition. It is from this that the true renewal of the Church will come. And it is because these novelties were introduced by a clergy infected with Modernism, that the most urgent and necessary work in the Church is the formation of a profoundly Catholic clergy. We give ourselves to this work with all our heart, aided henceforth by our eighty young priests, and encouraged by the presence of our two hundred and ten major seminarians. The countries of South and Central America give us hope. The Church was saved from Arianism. She will be saved as well from Modernism. Our Lord will triumph, even when, humanly speaking, all seems lost. His ways are not our ways. Would we have chosen the Cross to triumph over Satan, the world and sin? (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, April 1980)

1982

It provided the opportunity to generalize, to extend the sickness which already existed in the Church, and to extend it in an official manner, to the extent that one can almost say now that error spreads in the Church through obedience, which is something unheard of in the Church; that we are obliged by obedience to accept doctrine which is no longer truly orthodox, and Sacraments which are doubtful. www.angelusonline.org/index.phpsection=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=642

On the contrary, the Novus Ordo is precisely the banner of this false Ecuмenism, representing the annihilation of the Catholic Religion and the Catholic priesthood. For the honor of Jesus Christ and for the honor of the Church, let us be faithful to the Catholic Mass, symbol of our Faith, banner of our holy religion. To continue this Catholic Mass we need priests, and so we need Catholic, and not Modernist seminaries, where, as always in the Church, young clerics can direct their formation and apostolate entirely towards the altar of divine Sacrifice. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, February 1982)

... the Virgin Mary had the faith and she saw beyond the wounds, beyond the pierced Heart. She saw God in her Son, her Divine Son. We too, in spite of the wounds in the Church, in spite of the difficulties, the persecution which we are enduring, even from those in authority in the Church, let us not abandon the Church, let us love the Holy Church our Mother, let us serve Her always in spite of the authorities, if necessary. In spite of these authorities who wrongly persecute us, let us stay on the same road, let us keep to the same path: we want to support the Holy Roman Catholic Church, we want to keep it going and we will keep it going by means of the Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the true Sacraments of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the true catechism. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ordination Sermon 1982)

1983

The Society does not say that all the sacraments according to the new post-conciliar rites are invalid, but that due to bad translations, the lack of proper intention, and the changes introduced in the matter and form, the number of invalid and doubtful Sacraments is increasing. In order, then, to reach a decision in the practical order concerning the doubtfulness or invalidity of sacraments given by priests imbued with the ideas of the Council, a serious study of the various circuмstances is necessary. (Letter to American Friends and Benefactors, 1983)

"Fr. Williamson tells me some of you have a difficulty in understanding, concerning the New Rite of ordination, and over the 'New Rite' Sacraments. The rule of theology for the condition of validity of Sacraments, can be found in (your manuals) of Theology. We must perform an application of these conditions. . .to the new rite Sacraments of the reform of Vatican II. In some cases it is very difficult to know if it is valid or not. Especially in the vernacular translations of the form of the sacraments. In Latin it is easier to know if its valid or invalid, but in the vernacular, it is very difficult to know if some words invalidate a sacrament. So we must do, in some cases, a detailed study of that case. You know that many priests today change the form of the Sacrament! That is another difficulty in determining validity or invalidity, e.g. 'What did this bishop say when he did this sacrament? ... We must perform an examination of these things before we can say they are valid or invalid. We must study each case." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conferences to the Seminarians in Ridgefield, CT, April 1983)

1985

And so they reformed the Mass, [they made] the New Mass, the New Sacraments, the New Catechisms, the new Bible. All is changed by the spirit of Ecuмenism, to be closer to the Protestants. And the result is that many Catholics abandon their Faith and many become Protestants, or another religion, or they abandon all religion. We can see in your seminaries, in your convents, in your monasteries—where are the vocations? That is the destruction of the Church! (Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, April 1985)

1986

Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre
Q. About the sacraments, when do we know if they are invalid or valid in the New Mass? It is very confusing. Will there be a point when they are not valid any more? What about baptism, marriage?

A. The answer to that is found in the principles of theology. For the validity of a sacrament you must have three things: proper matter, proper form and proper intention, the intention of the priest. Those are the three conditions which determine the validity of the sacrament. I cannot say, myself, that for all Sacraments in the Conciliar Church, these three conditions are never met. I don't think we can say that. But I think with new priests, with priests who no longer have Catholic intentions, they don't know what the proper intention is, the intention of the Church, so that perhaps the validity of their sacraments is at least doubtful.

Interpolation by Father Laisney: There are three things required for a valid sacrament: valid matter, proper form and the proper intention in the minister and it is not true to say that it never happens that the sacraments are invalid in the Novus Ordo. There are some valid baptisms, some valid Masses, but, especially with new priests who are not trained properly, who do not know what should be the intention of the Church—for instance with the Mass, they think the Mass is just a meal—then the intention becomes doubtful, and there is at least a doubt in many modern Masses. At least a doubt. Moreover, you must add the bad translation. For instance, with "for many" replaced by "for all men," which is a change in the very words of consecration. This raises another doubt on the validity of the consecration. And so you have the intention of the minister that becomes doubtful. If the minister in baptism, for instance, says: "Oh, it's just a rite of initiation"—if they reject the intention to remove Original Sin, then the intention is not proper. Because they are trained in the new way, then the intention is sometimes doubtful. www.angelusonline.org/index.phpsection=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=1196

1988

When God calls me - no doubt this will be before long - from whom would these seminarians receive the Sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful Sacraments? This is not possible. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Consecration of the Four Bishops Sermon)

Why Ecône? At that time perhaps you did not perfectly realize the fight that Ecône leads. You came because of your desire to be formed in Tradition. Indeed, it seemed to you that to separate oneself from Tradition was to separate oneself from the Church and, therefore, to receive possibly doubtful Sacraments and a formation which is certainly not according to the principles of the Magisterium of the Church of All Times. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ordinations Sermon, June 1988)

Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre on the Necessity of Reordinations
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. ... We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ. ...Marcel Lefebvre (Archbishop Lefebvre and Questionable Priestly Ordinations in the Conciliar Church)

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

Quote

“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, etc.4.

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)

Footnotes:

1. We can make an exception for the new rite of Confirmation that permits the use of oils other than olive oil, which introduces a doubt concerning the validity, by reason of a defect of matter. We also point out that Fr Alvaro Calderon (SSPX), in the Spanish language review Si Si No No (#267, November 2014), speaks of a “slight doubt,” a “shadow” concerning the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration in itself (see Le Sel de la terre 92, p. 172).
2. Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Nantes (France), February 5, 1983.
3. Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Ecône (Switzerland), October 28, 1988. (Ibid.)

1989

And there can be no Catholic priests without Catholic bishops. We could have had, as you know, after the conversations with Rome, one bishop. But what would this bishop have been? They demanded that he have the "profile desired by the Vatican." What does that mean? That he have the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Vatican II. It is precisely to protect ourselves from that spirit which is not the Spirit of God, which is not the Catholic Spirit, that we decided to make these dear four Catholic bishops, and to transmit to the coming generations of seminarians the Catholic Priesthood. This way, you are assured that some priests shall continue to teach you and your children the True Catholic Faith and to transmit the grace through true Sacraments and the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. (Archbishop Lefebvre, On the Occasion of his 60th Ordination Anniversary)

1990

Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Bishop de Castro Mayer:
... because priests and faithful have a strict right to have shepherds who profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety, essential for the salvation of their souls, and to have priests who are true Catholic priests.

Secondly, because the Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and, as a result of these errors, it has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false Church is in an ever-deeper state of rupture with the Catholic Church. (Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre December 1990)

✠ ✠ ✠

OTHER SOURCES QUOTING ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE ON DOUBTFUL ORDINATIONS

Dominicans of Avrille – footnote to “The Art of Confessing”

Today, we must be precise: “a traditional priest validly ordained”. We know that there is a doubt on the validity of the new rite of priestly ordination(look at the letter of Archbishop Lefebvre on our website - see above letter from Archbishop Lefebvre dated October 28, 1998)). There is also a doubt about the validity of the ordinations performed by conciliar bishops, even when they use the traditional rite. In his sermon of the consecration of four bishops (June 30, 1988), Archbishop Lefebvre said: “If God calls me, from whom will these seminarians receive the priestly ordination: from conciliar bishops whose sacraments are ALL doubtful? www.dominicansavrille.us/the-art-of-confessing-part-1-of-3/

Dominicans of Avrille - Le Sel de la Terre 54

“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.” (Archbishop Lefebvre and Questionable Priestly Ordinations in the Conciliar Church)

Fr. Peter Scott wrote the following conclusion in a 2007 Angelus article, entitled, "Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained?":

It would, indeed, be tragic if all traditional priests did not have moral certitude as to their ordination, and if there existed two different grades of priests, a higher grade ordained in Tradition, and a lower grade. It is for this reason that the superiors have the right to insist on conditional re-ordination for any priest turning towards Tradition, and will only accept ordinations in the conciliar Church after having investigated both priestly and episcopal ordinations and established moral certitude.

Archbishop Lefebvre clearly recognized his obligation of providing priests concerning whose ordination there was no doubt. It was one of the reasons for the episcopal consecrations of 1988, as he declared in the sermon for the occasion:

Quote

You well know, my dear brethren, that there can be no priests without bishops. When God calls me—this will certainly not be long—from whom would these seminarians receive the sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments? This is not possible."

He continued, explaining that he could not leave the faithful orphans, nor abandon the seminarians who entrusted themselves to him, for “they came to our seminaries, despite all the difficulties that they have encountered, in order to receive a true ordination to the priesthood...” (Fr. Francois Laisney, Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p.120). He considered it his duty to guarantee the certitude of the sacrament of holy orders by the consecration of bishops in the traditional rite, who would then ordain only in the traditional rite.

We must observe the same balance as Archbishop Lefebvre. On the one hand, it is our duty to avoid the excess of sedevacantism, which unreasonably denies the very validity and existence of the post-conciliar Church and its priesthood. On the other hand, however, we must likewise reject the laxist and liberal approach that does not take seriously the real doubts that can arise concerning the validity of priestly ordinations in the post-conciliar Church, failing to consider the enormous importance and necessity of a certainly valid priesthood for the good of the Church, for the eternal salvation of souls, and for the tranquility of the consciences of the faithful. Given the gravity of these issues, it is not even a slight doubt that is acceptable. Hence the duty of examining in each particular case the vernacular form of priestly ordination, the intention of the ordaining bishop, the rite of consecration of the ordaining bishop, and the intention of the consecrators.

Just as the superiors take seriously their duty of guaranteeing the moral certitude of the holy orders of their priests, whether by means of conditional ordination or careful investigation (when possible), so also must priests who join the Society accept conditional ordination in case of even slight positive doubt, and so also must the faithful recognize that each case is different and accept the decision of those who alone are in a position to perform the necessary investigations.

For regardless of the technical question of the validity of a priest’s holy orders, we all recognize the Catholic sense that tells us that there can be no mixing of the illegitimate new rites with the traditional Catholic rites, a principle so simply elucidated by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 29, 1976:

Quote

We are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time, of the Catholic religion. We are not of that universal religion, as they call it today. It is no longer the Catholic religion. We are not of that liberal, modernist religion that has its worship, its priests, its faith, its catechisms, its Bible."

(Fr. Peter Scott, The Angelus, September 2007)

Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, quoted by Dominicans of Avrille:

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 Rite. Thus 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.” (Dominicans of Avrille, Questionable Priestly Ordinations in the Conciliar Church)

Bishop Richard Williamson

Should priests ordained with the new rite of Ordination of 1972 be conditionally re-ordained with the old and certainly valid rite of Ordination ? Catholic doctrine on the validity of sacraments is clear, but the sacramental rites of the Newchurch seem to have been designed to lead gradually to invalidity (see EC 121 of Oct 31, 2009). The « gradually » is the problem. How far along was that gradual process in any given case ? [...]

In brief, were I Pope, I think I might require that all priests or bishops ordained or consecrated with the « renewed » rites should be conditionally re-ordained or re-consecrated, not because I would believe that none of them were true priests or bishops, on the contrary, but because when it comes to the sacraments all serious doubts must be removed, and that would be the simplest way of removing all possible doubts. Newchurch rot of the sacraments could not be left hanging around. Newchurch Ordinations I - EC #356 May 10, 2014

[...] the Newrite of episcopal Consecration is an entirely new Rite. As such, is it valid? It is certainly illegitimate, because no Pope has the right to make such a break with Catholic Tradition. On the other hand in the context of the Newrite and its institution, the Newmatter, Newform and Newintention are very probably valid, because they signify what needs to be signified and most of their elements come from Rites accepted by the Church. But the validity is not certain because the break with Tradition is not legitimate, and because the Newrite is only similar to Rites approved by the Church, and all the changes go in a modernist direction. Therefore the absolute need for certain validity in sacramental Rites applies: until the restored Magisterium of the Church pronounces that the Newrite of Consecration is valid, then to be safe, Newbishops should be reconsecrated conditionally, and Newpriests ordained only by Newbishops should be re-ordained conditionally. Valid Bishops? II - EC#450 - January 27, 2016

[...] the sacraments call for absolutely certain validity, especially the consecration of bishops on whom the Church hangs. Therefore newbishops and newpriests were best conditionally re-consecrated and re-ordained. Valid Bishops? III EC#451 - March 5, 2016

Catechism of timely truths: The rallies (seen by Archbishop Lefebvre), abbot FM. Chautard - July 8, 2018 [Translated from the French]

17) Are the sacraments of the rallied priests valid?

The sacraments of the rallied priests are valid to the extent that their ordinations are valid (for the sacraments which require the priesthood in the minister). However, one can have a doubt about the priesthood of clerics rallied who were ordained by bishops themselves doubtfully sacred [consecrated] because of ambiguous intentions and the new rite of episcopal consecrations (after 1968).

As for the confirmations given in the rallied communities, the doubt of the validity arises moreover with regard to the material used for the Holy Chrism. If the oil is not olive oil, as is now authorized and practiced, a doubt remains. (Fr. Chautard, Catechism of Timely Truth 2018)

Louis Salleron, 1979

"It is a completely new doctrine of the priesthood which, today, is poisoning "The Church of France." According to this doctrine, the priest is no longer a man set apart and endowed, by the Sacrament of Orders, with the power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, with the special mission to preach the Gospel and to teach the truths to be believed. He is now only a member of the faithful, man or woman, married or celibate, chosen by the community to serve them and give thanks to God." (Michael Davies, Apologia Vol. III The Pope, the Bishops, and the Priests

Fr. Peter Scott - 2003

"Everything that comes from the hierarchy, such as the Rites of Mass and the Sacraments, the laws of the Church, and everything that belongs to ecclesiastical law is treated as if it is not sacred, that it is changing, and that it is has no permanent value. All Catholic customs, prayers, rites, and all sense of the sacred is in one fell swoop thrown out the window, since they are all the product of a hierarchy which is a service, and the strange paradox is that this has been done by the hierarchy itself, in the name of its new function of a service. (Fr. Peter Scott, "How are Catholics to Respond to the Present Crisis?" The Angelus: April 2003)

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre

Hewkonian · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2024, 03:08:42 PM »

Archbishop Lefebvre - On the New [Conciliar] Code of Canon Law

[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonlaw.info%2Fz_popesign2.jpg&f=1

“And in fact, there is even an additional obstacle, which is the new Code of Canon Law, which has been made in the same spirit I’ve just been speaking to you about, the spirit of the Council, a bad spirit.” (Conference, Long Island, New York, November 5, 1983)

“Another grave problem now undermining the Church is found in the new Canon Law. The new Canon Law is very serious for it goes much further than the Council itself.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)

A second question is now being put to us: “What do you think of the new Canon Law?”

We are unfortunately obliged to answer that despite certain useful modifications, the spirit which has presided over this general reform is the same as that which inspired the changing of liturgical books, catechisms, and the Bible. The Apostolic Constitution introducing the new Canon Law explicitly says on page xi of the Vatican edition: “The work, namely the Code, is in perfect accord with the nature of the Church, especially as has been proposed by the II Vatican Council. Moreover, this new Code can be conceived as an effort to expose in canonical language this doctrine, i.e., conciliar Ecclesiology. The elements of this Ecclesiology are the following: Church = people of God; hierarchical authority = collegial service; Church = communion; and lastly the Church with Her duty to ecuмenism. Each one of these notions is ambiguous and will allow Protestant and Modernist errors to inspire from now on the legislation of the Church. It is the authority of the Pope and of the Bishops which is going to suffer; the distinction between the clergy and the laity will also diminish; the absolute and necessary character of the Catholic will also be extenuated to the profit of heresy and schism; and the fundamental realities of sin and grace will be worn down. These are all dangerous for the doctrine of the Church and the salvation of souls. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1983)

... when one reads this new code of Canon Law one discovers an entirely new conception of the Church. It is easy to be aware of, since John Paul II himself describes it in the apostolic constitution which introduces the new Code. ". . . It follows that which constitutes the fundamental novelty of Vatican Council II, in full continuity with the legislative tradition of the Church (this is to deceive), especially in that which concerns ecclesiology, constitutes also the novelty of the new Code." Hence the novelty of the conception of the Church according to the Council is equally the novelty of the conception of the new Code of Canon Law. (Archbishop Lefebvre, given at Turin, Italy, March 24, 1984)

What is this novelty? It is that there is no longer any difference between the clergy and the laity. There is now just the faithful, nothing else ... (Ibid.)

This is exactly the same thing as saying today that Bishops, priests and laymen have all responsibility for the mission of the Church. But who gives the graces to become a Catholic? How does one become faithful? No one knows any more who has the responsibility for what. It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church. Everything is oriented towards the laymen, and little by little the sacred ministers disappear. The minor orders and the subdiaconate have already disappeared. Now there are married deacons, and little by little laymen take over the ministry of the priests. This is precisely what Luther and the protestants did, laicizing the priesthood. It is consequently very serious. (Ibid.)

It is this same spirit which inspired the changing of the canon Law as that which inspired the changes in the Liturgy: it is the people of God, the assembly, which does everything. The same applies to the priest. He is a simple president who has a ministry, as others have a ministry, in the midst of an assembly. Our orientation towards God has likewise disappeared. This comes from the Protestants who say that Eucharistic devotion (for them there is neither Mass nor sacrifice: this would be blasphemy) is simply a movement of God towards man, but not of man towards God to render Him glory, which is nevertheless the first (latreutic) end of the Liturgy. This new state of liturgical mind comes likewise from Vatican II: everything is for man. The bishops and priest are at the service of man and the assembly. But where is God then? In what is His glory sought? What will we do in heaven? For in heaven "all is for the glory of God," which is exactly what we ought to do here on earth. But all that is done away with, and replaced by man. This is truly the ruin of all Catholic thought. (Ibid.)

You know that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion to a Protestant. It is what they call Eucharistic hospitality. These are Protestants who remain Protestant and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To give Communion to a Protestant is to rupture the Faith and its unity. (Ibid.)

Quotes by Other Traditional Clergy on the New Code of Canon Law

It was, in fact, Pope John Paul II who recognized the centrality of the new theology of the Church in all the changes that have come about in the past 40 years. He states it very explicitly in the Apostolic Constitution that he wrote to introduce the 1983 Code of Canon Law, on January 25, 1983. He there states that: "the new Code can be conceived as a great effort to transfer into canonical language this doctrine itself [i.e., proposed by Vatican II], namely conciliar Ecclesiology." He goes on to state that: "the fundamental reason for the novelty which...is found in the Second Vatican Council, especially with respect to its ecclesiological teachings, is also the reason for the novelty contained in the new Code." It must be remembered that the laws contained in the Code of Canon Law are the practical guide for Catholics in living their Faith, and that any "novelty" contained therein must be of the greatest importance for them. (Fr. Peter Scott, "How Are Catholics to Respond to the Present Crisis in the Church?: April 2003)

"... it was the mark of collegiality that eminently distinguished the origin of the new Code, and that this mark is full in agreement with the Magisterium and nature of the Second Vatican Council, bearing its spirit. In order to establish this point the Pope lists the chief novel teachings of Vatican II contained in the Code, namely that "the Church, the universal sacrament of salvation, is shown to be the People of God and its hierarchical constitution to be founded on the College of Bishops together with its head". This is effectively the definition of collegiality. (Ibid.)

"...the shameless practice of Ecuмenism and sacramental sharing with non-Catholics, [is] permitted in the entirely invalid Canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law." (Ibid.)

Hewkonian · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2024, 03:09:34 PM »

Archbishop Lefebvre - Against the New Conciliar Oath of Fidelity

“Firstly, [in the Oath of Fidelity] there is the Credo which poses no problems. The Credo has remained intact. And, so the first and second sections raise no difficulties either. They are well-known things from a theological point of view. It is the third section which is very bad. What it means in practice is lining up on what the bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which, of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council. To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."

"As it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit of these people with whom it is impossible to come to an agreement. It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath suppressed in the wake of the Council. All the poison in this third section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state their full agreement with the bishops. It is as if in the times of Arianism one had said, "Now you are in agreement with everything that all the Arian bishops think."

"No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One may ask oneself if in Rome they didn't mean in this way to correct the text of the protocol. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favor in Article III of the Doctrinal Declaration because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.

"And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.

"Differently from in the Protocol, in these new texts there is a submission to the Council and all the Conciliar bishops. That is their spirit and no one will change them.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

WhiteWorkinClassScapegoat · « **Reply #4 on:** August 22, 2024, 03:10:32 PM »

The Novus Ordo is a cheap carnival ride with free poisoned cotton candy.

Seraphina · « **Reply #5 on:** August 22, 2024, 03:23:53 PM »

The way I see it, the conciliar church had 18 years to give me the Catholic Faith and they blew it. +Bp. Williamson did it in 45 minutes.

Author Topic: The Novus Ordo is Poisoned, and Catholics must reject it. (Read 1723 times)

Hewkonian

The Novus Ordo is Poisoned, and Catholics must reject it.

Hewkonian

Re: The Novus Ordo is Poisoned, and Catholics must reject it.

Hewkonian

Re: The Novus Ordo is Poisoned, and Catholics must reject it.

Hewkonian

Re: The Novus Ordo is Poisoned, and Catholics must reject it.

WhiteWorkinClassScapegoat

Re: The Novus Ordo is Poisoned, and Catholics must reject it.

Seraphina

Re: The Novus Ordo is Poisoned, and Catholics must reject it.