RECEIVED THIS TODAY IN MY MAILBOX. THE PRIEST'S NAME WAS NOT GIVEN. PERHAPS IT IS FR MICHEL KOLLER AS MENTIONED ON OTHER FORUMS?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: French priest speaks out
My dear faithful, instead of giving a sermon today I would like to share with you my thoughts on our situation in order to help you in your own reflections as I must do so myself.
As most of you know, this week docuмents will be signed in Rome to recognise the priestly Society of St. Pius X, giving it a personal prelature, that is to say, that we will be directly dependent on the Pope. Faced by the seriousness of this act, I learned on the day of my baptism, the day of my confirmation and particularly the day of my priestly ordination, that I had received duties to accomplish, just as you also received them.
The first duty was to study my faith. Second duty: to show my faith, to practise it. Third duty to defend my faith against error. Today my faith is in danger. For, my dear faithful, if today I don't want want to go through the whole history of everything which has led us to the signing of an agreement, allow me at least to quote the texts and give a few brief commentaries on them so that you realise what is at stake with such an agreement. And then afterwards everyone may be able, after reflection and meditation, to draw the consequences and act accordingly.
The first phrase which I would like to comment on is a phrase written by Mgr. Fellay the 14th April, 2012, writing to the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, who themselves had shown a firm opposition to any agreement with Rome. From this letter I will take out one sentence, “For the common good of the Society we would prefer our present status quo of a provisional situation but Rome is unwilling to tolerate it any longer".
My dear faithful, this sentence is extremely grave in its consequences, since you have learned, as I have, that the father of a family has a primary, grave duty to safeguard the well-being of his family. The head of a business has a primary, grave duty to safeguard the well-being of his business and it's the same for the superior of a religious community. But here I read that for the common good of the Society we would prefer to stay in our present situation but that Mgr. Fellay prefers to go outside of the common good of the Society. Of course one could legitimately ask oneself, if Mgr. Fellay is doing this, is there possibly a favourable change on the side of Rome. And if that were the case it would be good and opportune to move a little closer to the Pope. My dear faithful, for those of you who have studied the question, even a little, whether there has been a change either in the Roman Curia or in Pope Benedict XVI you would realise, as I have, the following: these are facts.
When the Motu Proprio of 7th July 2007 was promulgated freeing the Tridentine Mass observers were careful to examine the intentions of its author by looking at what would be the results of what he had done. It is true that the Motu Proprio freeing the Traditional Mass, as if it needed to be freed, if you please, could let a little spring into the Church.
Nonetheless it is well to remember that the 21st October 2007 the Pope did the interreligious meeting in Naples; in 2008, in April, he visited the ѕуηαgσgυє of New York. As you know, it wasn't to admire the architecture but for another reason far more serious. In 2008 he went to the youth celebrations Sydney with its inculturated liturgy and its pagan ritual which had been introduced in the liturgy in Sydney in the presence of the Holy Father. In May 2009, the Holy Father visited the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem. Likewise it was not to admire the architecture but to pray there. Still in 2009, the same day, there was the Jєωιѕн ritual at the wailing wall which is something only Jєωs do, but on that day it was practised by Benedict XVI. In January 2010, there was a visit to the ѕуηαgσgυє in Rome; in March 2010 active participation in the Lutheran service in Rome; in May 2011 the beatification of John Paul II and in October 2011 the repetition of the scandal of Assisi, where not only were all sorts of religions gathered together but even atheists, who were able to express, not their faith of course, but their point of view regarding the faith.
So many things, my dear faithful, which have marred this spring in the Church which should have been the result of the Motu Proprio. One could add a multitude of words but we shall confine ourselves to deeds as we have just done. His acts are extremely serious before God for he is sinning principally against the first commandment; but equally, he is sinning because, by his acts, as Mgr. Lefebvre said, he has continued in the work of dethroning our Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, my dear faithful, some of you who have been nurturing a great hope, saying, you can't just look at the bad things he does, since he is stretching out his hand to us, they are there.
Well, dear faithful, I answer, using the words of Mgr. Fellay himself. For to sign an agreement with Rome will have consequences and amongst these here are a few examples: (I am just quoting Mgr. Fellay. You will find this in the official journal of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X, no. 256 in an article entitled – Interview with Mgr. Fellay concerning our attitude towards Rome. These are not my words. And I insist, dear faithful, that we need to consider the consequences of such an act.)
Among the many questions which were put to Mgr. Fellay, is the following: A personal prelature is the canonical structure that you mentioned in recent statements. Now, in the Code of Canon Law, canon 297 requires not only informing diocesan bishops but obtaining their permission in order to found a work on their territory. Although it is clear that any canonical recognition will preserve our apostolate in its present state, are you willing to accept the possibility that future works may be allowed only with the permission of the bishop in dioceses where the Society of Saint Pius X is not present today?
Mgr. Fellay's reply: It is still true—since it is Church law—that in order to open a new chapel or to found a work, it would be necessary to have the permission of the local ordinary. We have quite obviously reported to Rome how difficult our present situation was in the dioceses, and Rome is still working on it. Here or there, this difficulty will be real, but since when is life without difficulties?
So let us be very clear, my dear faithful, that from the date of the signing of the docuмent, every chapel, every individual action in a diocese will have to have the permission of the local bishop. Even better, or even worse, another question to Mgr. Fellay: Again, if there is a canonical recognition, will you give some cardinals in the Curia or some bishops the opportunity to visit our chapels, to celebrate Mass, to administer Confirmation, perhaps even to ordain priests at your seminaries?
Reply: The bishops who are in favor of Tradition (I would like to know who they are) and the conservative cardinals will come closer. One can foresee a whole development, without knowing the particular details. (We're going forward into uncertainty, but at least we're going forward!) And certainly there will be difficulties, too, which is altogether normal. There is no doubt that people will come to visit us, but as for a more precise collaboration, such as the celebration of Mass or ordinations, that will depend on the circuмstances.
So, my dear faithful, you can expect to see Mgr. Simon Hypolite here, perhaps even for confirmations. Good luck to you.
Now, some will say to me, yes but even so, you mustn't exaggerate, there are some good bishops who will look out for us. The reply once again is not from me but from the diocesan bishops themselves. Concerning the integration of the Society of St. Pius X in the dioceses, this is what the bishops of France think, and I quote: “Will the recognition of the SSPX change the situation in the dioceses? Many bishops don't think so but rather that they who were previously marginalised and illegal will become marginalised and legal much like the municipalities grant a piece of land to gipsies who previously have occupied it. Thanks for “illegal”, thanks for “gipsies”, thanks for the “piece of land”. I shall remember that.
A little detail which is said by the by, in this article which is not by the SSPX nor myself but the modern church, concerning the Mass of the Motu Proprio that is the Mass of St. Pius V, it was authorised, as if it needed an authorisation, by Pope Benedict XVI by what it called the Motu Proprio. Have the faithful had the possibility to have this Mass? The article goes through each diocese. I won't read everything, it's not necessary. In the diocese of Poicy and Armante, the application of Benedict XVI's text was blocked. In Paris, Mgr. Veignt Trois will not grant the Mass to St. Stephen in the 5th District in spite of a strong local demand. In the diocese of Vanne, in the East Mgr. Centaine has taken no notice of the Motu Proprio. In Rheims, Mgr. Thierry has always been known as one of the most vicious enemies of any traditional contamination (thanks for “contamination”) of the diocesan clergy. He will not allow the weekly Mass in his Cathedral City. Here in the diocese of Clermont Mgr. Simon Hypolite said to Father Chabria, unfortunately deceased, - I have this directly from Fr. Chabria,- the traditional Mass in the Auvergne will be celebrated as long as the SSPX are present here. As soon as they have disappeared there will no longer be that Mass here.
My dear friends, the signature has struck. If you, and I speak especially here for the old guard, you have fought for 40 years, looking for somewhere to say Mass, taking shelter in garages, insalubrious places because you were criticised, condemned, counted among the transgressors by the modernist church. Have you fought for 40 years for nothing? To make an alliance now with those who haven't changed a jot? It's like they recently asked a soldier who had fought in Vietnam, they asked him the question, are you going to vote for Francois Hollande, for the communists? I won't give you his answer because it's a real soldier's answer. It was unthinkable for this soldier to support the communists after having fought, put his life at risk, indeed hundreds, thousands of his comrades are now dead because of communism. And I say to you also, personally I have fought for thirty years against modernism, and I was present at the death of several confreres who were despised by the bishops, by Popes, and now you want me to make an agreement with those people? You, or some of you, are free to roll yourselves in that mud but you do so without me.
So, my dear friends, to sum up I would like to give you a few short principles. My dear faithful, you can be for or against the agreements. But there is one thing which you and I have to do: it is consider the principles of the faith. First of all let me remind you what Father Barielle, Spiritual Director in Econe, Confessor of Mgr. Lefebvre, said. He was a man of faith and helped the SSPX in a marvellous and providential way by giving them the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius. This is what he wrote in 1982.
"I am writing this to serve as a lesson to everyone. The day that the SSPX abandons the spirit and rules of its founder it will be lost. More than that, from now on all our brothers who allow themselves to judge us and soon to condemn the founder and his principles have not hesitated to take away from the Society the traditional teaching of the Church and the Mass instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ".
My friends, there have been no exceptions to what that Father wrote. All those, without exception, who have criticised Mgr. Lefebvre and who have made an alliance with Rome, all of them without exception have had to swallow Vatican II and its errors as well as the new mass. What is then the spirit of the founder? Never forget, dear faithful, and this is what Father Barielle often said to me, Mgr. Lefebvre received the grace to found the SSPX. None of the other members have that grace. They have received the grace to follow Mgr. Lefebvre's work. If we want to change the grace Mgr. Lefebvre received we shall be doing something else and we shall fall. What did Mgr. Lefebvre say? That's what I rely on and those are the principles which I ask you to meditate on.
On 27 November 1988, so after the episcopal consecrations, Mgr. Lefebvre had been excommunicated by modernist Rome, this is what he said. "The true, fundamental opposition between Rome and us is the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. He shall reign, says St. Paul, our Lord came to reign. They say no and we say yes with all the Popes. Why were there missionaries for so many years? To preach that Jesus Christ is the true Lord, to tell the pagans to convert. And now we must stop it and tell the pagans your religion is ok, keep it. As long as you are good Buddhists, good Muslims and good pagans. That's why we can never agree with Rome because we obey our Lord Jesus Christ, saying to his Apostles: go teach the Gospel unto the ends of the earth. That's why it's not surprising that we can't agree with Rome. It's not possible as long as Rome doesn't return to the faith in the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is why they give us the impression that all religions are good, our obstacle is a point of the Catholic Faith".
A few months later, but still in 1988, Mgr. said, "we need to be determined to make no compromise, both with regard to the sede-vacantists, those who think there is no Pope, and those who want absolutely to be subject to ecclesiastic authority. We wish to remain attached to our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, Vatican II has dethroned our Lord. We wish to remain faithful to our Lord, King, Prince and Ruler of the whole world. We can change nothing in that line of action. Similarly when they ask us when will there be an agreement with Rome, my reply is simple: when Rome recognises the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We can never agree with those who dethrone our Lord. The day when they recognise once more Our Lord, King of Nations, it won't be us who rejoin the Church but they who come back to the Church where we have remained".
That, my dear faithful, is what I could sign today. The day of my priestly ordination I signed the anti-modernist oath that is to say I signed to fight that error which is the synthesis of all errors according to the words of St. Pius X. Not only did I sign but I will not retract my signature even if they throw me out of the churches which we have built. The Society of St. Pius X to which I adhere absolutely, but the Society which is anti-modernist, it will continue and I will continue in it. And that for my whole life until my death.
And to finish I would like to affirm that I lived for many years with a holy priest who was called Father LaPraz, who offered his life and all his sufferings not only for the Church but for the SSPX. And I know this for a fact, after having spoken about it many, many times with this holy priest. I know that he would never have signed anything else other than the anti-modernist oath. Already in 1990, Father LaPraz and I realised that there were people who had infiltrated the SSPX in the same way it was done in Vatican II. We notified those responsible. The only thing we got back in return was a battering with the crozier. But that doesn't matter for we shall continue this fight because we signed, because we love the Church, the true Church. We shall continue this fight with all those who wish to fight with us. Thanks be to God, dear faithful, we are working for Heaven and not for this or that bishop or for this or that Pope. I am working for Christ the King and for no-one else. Let it be said, let it be repeated. I say it and I bless you. Amen.
Topic: A FRENCH PRIEST SPEAKS AGAINST THE DEAL (Read 1836 times)