In the recent Avrillé Dominican's Letters n° 86 and n° 87, the Dominicans have come through strong to stand up for the fight of Tradition; and remaining faithful to the position outlined by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Below are some excerpts from these letters:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avrillé Dominican's Letters n° 86 (January 23, 2014)
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Saint Dominic,
May Our Lord bless you and all your families now, and throughout the whole year that is just starting!
You have probably heard about an “appeal to the faithful” signed by 45 priests and announced officially on Sunday, January 19th. In this appeal, the signatories voice their opposition with the new attitude adopted by the authorities of the SSPX over the past few years with regard to modernist Rome. Our community of Avrillé unanimously decided to sign the appeal seeing that the authorities of the SSPX have in no way turned back from their projects to put themselves under the current Roman authorities1, despite all the very well-founded warnings, and even despite the extravagances of Pope Francis (although, let us not think that Benedict XVI was any less modernist). All this may come as a surprise to many in the U.S., but that is mainly due to a lack of information.
In this letter, you will find some information about the current situation, and I will continue to keep you informed. For your part, please be frank and open with me, and don’t hesitate to ask any questions.
At the end of the letter you will find a copy of the “appeal to the faithful”. I would like to insist on the fact that this appeal is not a declaration of a break with the SSPX, but to the contrary, a public testimony of our firm and faithful attachment to the principles which had always guided Archbishop Lefebvre in the combat for the Faith.
Count on my prayers at the altar for each and every one of you,
IN MARIA,
Fr. Angelico OP
-------------------------------------------------
1. For example, Bishop Fellay has never retracted his doctrinal declaration of April 2012, which accepts the legitimacy of the promulgation of the New Mass, the “living tradition” of Vatican II and the new code of canon law. Menzingen also continues to unjustly persecute the priests who manifest any misgivings (even privately) about the “new orientations”.
-------------------------------------------------
(...)
THE PASSION OF THE CHURCH
The New Profession of Faith
Regarding the current question of practical agreements with an unconverted Rome, and whatever guarantees would be allowed, there is a point rarely mentioned: the new profession of faith. And yet it is an essential point. In 2001, in a conference with his priests in speaking of the first proposals of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Bishop Fellay said:
We, especially the bishops, would have nothing special to sign, no particular declaration, but simply the profession of faith that every person must give when receiving an ecclesiastical office, with the oath of allegiance.
On June 30, 2012, in a letter to Bishop Fellay, Benedict XVI explained that: “[The doctrinal preamble of September 14, 2011] incorporates indispensable elements to be in a position to make the profession of faith and the oath of fidelity.”
So, of what do the profession of faith and oath of fidelity consist?
—The profession of faith in accordance with the traditional discipline of the Church—
In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, a profession of faith is required, under pain of mortal sin, from those who will be invested with certain titles or functions in the Church, because it is a means to verify the integrity of their faith. Those who must make this profession are: seminarians (starting from the sub – diaconate), priests intending to receive confessions, preachers, parish priests, teachers in seminaries and Catholic colleges, the superiors of religious congregations , bishops, etc. (C.1406).
This profession of Catholic faith consists of two parts: 1) The profession of faith of Pius IV 5; 2) The anti modernist oath instituted by St. Pius X (the encyclical Pascendi)6
— The Second Vatican Council —
Among the Vota, or wishes expressed by the bishops before the Council, was included the request for a new profession of faith which would be enriched by affirmations from Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis and decrees on certain errors more recently condemned by the Holy Office.
So at the end of December1960, Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, proposed to Pope John XXIII the composition of a new profession of faith. It would be used at the opening of the Council. The discussions were fierce—similar to those of the Central Preparatory Commission. The disputes were over items that might have threatened ecuмenism and openness to the world. They could not come to an agreement, so the project was dismissed until after the Council! Thus, at the beginning of the Council, the Council Fathers continued to make the Tridentine-Vatican profession of faith as was then the rule (how many still believed?).
However, it is interesting to read Cardinal Ottaviani’s 1961 draft, because it completes the traditional profession of faith by adding the current errors to it.7
— The New Profession of Faith —
After the close of the Council, they went to work drafting a new profession of faith. After various attempts, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published the results on March 1, 1989, which now has the force of law. The Tridentine profession of faith and the anti-modernist oath disappeared. In its place now is the Nicean-Constantinople symbol (the Credo of the Mass8 ), to which the following was added:
1. With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
-------------------------------------------------
[5. It is also called the “Tridentine Profession of faith” because it was written to apply the Decrees of the Council of Trent. Under the reign of Pius IX, the Sacred Congregation for the Council added to the end adherence to the teachings of Vatican I, especially regarding the primacy of the pope.
6. The Anti-modernist Oath is not mentioned in the Code, because it appeared at the time as a transitory measure, to last only as long as it would take for modernism to disappear… On 22 March 1918, the Holy Office declared the oath to be obligatory until otherwise decided by the Holy See. Unfortunately, modernism is always around and thus the oath is always pertinent.
7. See the article: “Le projet de profession de foi proposé pour l’ouverture du concile Vatican II,” in Sel de la Terre no. 69.
8. It is the least of things! It is the profession of faith that all the faithful make each Sunday!]
-------------------------------------------------
2. I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
3. Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
— Archbishop Lefebvre’s Judgement on the New Profession of Faith —
"Firstly, 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. Besides, in the preamble 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 clearly demonstrates 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 venom is 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 [of 5 May 1988]. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favour, because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.
"And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. No doubt, they are 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 under the obligation to make an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.9”
-------------------------------------------------
9. Archbishop Lefebvre in Fideliter no. 70, July-August 1989, p. 16, English text from pamphlet distributed by St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary titled “One Year After the consecrations – an Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre.”
-------------------------------------------------
“An official act of joining the Conciliar Church”—this is the scope of the new profession of faith. It was important to have Archbishop Lefebvre’s judgement.
It appears it is no longer possible to speak of the “Conciliar Church”
In an article in the February 2013 issue of Courrier de Rome, Fr. Gleize, professor of dogma at the seminary in Écône, developed a (new) thesis saying that what we call the “Conciliar Church” (a term first used by Archbishop Benelli10) was actually nothing more than a liberal and modernist spirit, introduced into the Church at the time of the Council Vatican II, a disease affecting the body of the Church.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais answered Fr. Gleize in an article in Sel de la Terre, no. 8511, drawing conclusions from the texts of Archbishop Lefebvre that - the Pope remaining course Pope - the Conciliar Church is a real organization with its (new) dogmas, its priesthood, its worship, its canon law, etc. It acts as a counterfeit of the Church, led by a sect of managers. The Catholic Church, meanwhile, is reduced to the faithful and bishops who keep the true faith.
Here are the words of Archbishop Lefebvre:
"I think that at the next meeting . . . I will be the one who asks them questions. I will be the one who will interrogate them and I will ask them: “Which Church are you? With which Church are we dealing here? Am I dealing with the Catholic Church or am I dealing with another Church, a counterfeit of the Church?” . . . Now I sincerely believe that we are dealing with a counterfeit of the Church and not the Catholic Church . . . This is no longer the Catholic Church. (21 June 1978)".
Fr. Gleize responded to Bishop Tissier’s study in an article in Courrier de Rome in September 2013.
This is not the place to enter into this debate, at least not in this Letter. What we want to emphasize is that this is not about a simple theological dispute among specialists. The practical consequences of this controversy were not long in coming, and they are disturbing.
And so the September 2013 English language version of our Letter from the Dominicans of Avrillé, no. 14, was banned from being distributed in Society chapels in the United States. It was a simple summary of an article in our French Lettre No. 65, of April 2013, entitled “the Conciliar Church.”
The reason for the ban given by Fr. Rostand, the U.S. District Superior, in a letter to his priests, was that the Letter advocates a “thesis” used by the “dissidents” in the Society in the United States, while Fr. Gleize, “in a
remarkable article in the February 2013 Courrier de Rome,” defends “a
quite different position.” So, this Letter introduces “dialectic.”
-------------------------------------------------
10. Bishop Giovanni Benelli, then Substitute to the Secretary of State, used this expression in a 25 June 1976 letter to Archbishop Lefebvre. The expression has now become classic.
11. This article, titled: “Y-a-t-il une Égile conciliaire?” [Is there a Conciliar Church?] is available [only in French] as a reprint from the Friary for 1 € + postage.
-------------------------------------------------
We do not know what any “dissident” said, but if he relied on Archbishop Lefebvre, it is very much to his credit. In any case, the Letter merely summarizes the position that has been adopted by Tradition for 37 years, from 1976 (Abp. Lefebvre) to 2013 (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais), and, besides these two bishops, by figures as varied as Jean Madiran, Fr. Gustave Corcao and Fr. Lorans.
So, who introduced the “dialectic”? Those who defend the position held in Tradition for 37 years, or those who adopt “a quite different position” born of “a remarkable article,” but dating only from 2013?
A little later, Bishop Fellay personally informed us that he approved of Fr. Rostand’s decision, and he reproached us for having opened the columns of Sel de la Terre to Bishop Tissier on this issue.
The new thesis now becomes the only opinion.
Do you want to see other consequences? An example is in the words below, that we heard recently in a Traditional sermon:
"Faith in the Church requires us to profess what we say in the Creed: “I believe in one, holy Church.” We say it and we are not talking about a Church in the air!
[So far, there is no problem. However, the following presents a continuous confusion between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church.]
"We speak of the Church that is here, real, before us, with a hierarchy, with a pope12. This is not the fruit of our imagination: the Church is here; it is real, the Roman Catholic Church. We say and we must profess this Church as being holy13 as being one14 for the faith obliges us to15.
"It is the Church that gives this faith (that we ask for at baptism), and it is the current Church16! It is the current Church which sanctifies17. When we say “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (outside the Church there is no salvation), it is the current Church about which we speak. It is absolutely certain; we must hold it."
-------------------------------------------------
12. This “Church that is here” does not clearly manifest the four marks of the Church, which are much more visible in Tradition.
13. Claiming that today the Pope and the official bishops sanctify the faithful: No! They lead them into apostasy.
14. No! This official hierarchy has not united this Church in the faith, or at least it does not profess it.
15. This is false. To the contrary, the faith shows us that the marks of the Church are very obscure in the current official Church: in particular the marks of unity, holiness and catholicity.
16. No! The current official Church has invented a new catechism which no longer transmits the entirety of the faith.
17. We cannot remark on each line: see note 9.
-------------------------------------------------
These last two sentences lead to the following conclusion: if there is no salvation outside of this official Church, our situation is abnormal18, and it is essential for us to obtain a canonical regularization.
The Rosary Crusade
“For the return of Tradition into the Church”
The desire to no longer use the term “Conciliar Church” is changing many things: hence the ambiguity of the intentions given for the Fourth Rosary Crusade. We are talking about the official intentions published by the General House of the Society of St. Pius X, which can be found on the DICI web site, and which alone count. We 're not talking about corrections that were made by lower authorities in certain countries or chapels—proof that there is a problem—but which does not correspond to what the higher authority has requested.
On Sunday, 29 December 2013, the Sunday during the Octave of Christmas, the following announcement was made at the Masses at the Friary of La Haye-aux-Bonshommes before the sermon:
"You may have heard that the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X has launched a new Rosary Crusade which will last from January 1 to June 8, 2014. The second objective of this crusade is stated thusly: “Pour le retour de la Tradition dans l’Église” [For the return of Tradition into the Church].
"It is not possible for us to associate ourselves with such an intention:
"- Indeed, if it is a question of the Catholic Church, there is no sense to ask for the return of Tradition into the Catholic Church, since it is already there. Tradition is in the Church, it is even the most visible part of the Church.
"-If however, by “Church” is meant the Conciliar Church, we must not ask for Tradition to return to this Church, which would be a betrayal in the fight for the faith, instead we must ask that this Conciliar Church return to Tradition.
"Therefore , we will not associate ourselves with this Rosary Crusade, but we will pray the Rosary for the return of Conciliar Rome to Tradition, and for ourselves, that we will remain faithful to the Catholic faith without our joining the Conciliar Church, which would be a terrible betrayal."
-------------------------------------------------
18. In his sermon at the 29 June 2013 ordinations, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais said: “We [Tradition] are not in an abnormal situation, but in an exceptional situation.” Nothing is more normal, indeed, than for a Catholic to distance himself from a hierarchy that is corrupting the faith. However, that the perversion of the faith comes from Rome is, fortunately, an exceptional situation never before seen in history.
-------------------------------------------------
Some remarks on Section 5 of the study released by the General House of the Society of St. Pius X to explain the ban on the book by Fr. Pivert: Son Excellence Mgr Lefebvre, nos rapports avec Rome [His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, Our Relations With Rome]19
This study contains errors, half-truths and other very surprising statements, but we will content ourselves with a comment on section no. 5 (an apologia for the Ecclesia Dei communities):
"5: The attitude toward the Ecclesia Dei communities is counterproductive. […] From the start of the book, Fr. Pivert claims that the Ecclesia Dei communities have supposedly abandoned doctrinal Tradition, nothing more, nothing less! From page to page, one discovers regarding [these communities] some very severe judgements [of the Archbishop] which are not put into their proper context. From the episcopal consecrations until his death, Archbishop Lefebvre hardly had the time to see how these communities would evolve. [...]
"[Archbishop Lefebvre] also affirmed that he expected that the priests of the Fraternity of Saint Peter would soon adopt the New Mass. The facts have shown to the contrary that they have been able to resist all attacks. They were victorious in 1999, when Rome made an attempt at subverting them, and almost all of the 16 signers of a petition for bi-ritualism have since had to leave the Fraternity. Today, they’re over 250 priests celebrating the ancient rite. No one can say that Archbishop Lefebvre would have maintained the same apprehension today as in 1988. At the same time, when one searches in the correspondence of Archbishop Lefebvre, one also finds more moderate passages with regard to the Ecclesia Dei communities, admitting the fact that they are not “rallied”20 in spirit, and that they have the advantage of reminding the bishops on a daily basis what Tradition is…"
1. This text ignores the fact that the Ecclesia Dei communities cannot publicly criticize Vatican II; that they recognize the legitimacy of the New Mass, the new Code of Canon Law, the new profession of faith, and that they never denounce the current Roman scandals.
The text also avoids saying that Le Barroux monastery (in the works written by their Fr. Basile) and the Institute of the Good Shepherd (Le Mascaret, No. 281) justify the religious liberty of Vatican II, and that Fr. Bisig, (former superior and co-founder of the Fraternity of Saint Peter) defends Assisi type meetings (Wdroze Review of January 1999 quoted in La Combat de la foi no.127 ).
-------------------------------------------------
19. (Le Moulin du Pin. 53290 . Beaumont Pied-de-Boeuf)
20. In France, the Ecclesia Dei communities are referred to as « rallied » (ralliés) to Rome. It is an allusion to the French Catholics of the late 19th century who “rallied” themselves behind Leon XIII’s disastrous call to cooperation with the anti-Catholic Masonic French Republic. This cooperation (coupled with the condemnation of the Action Française by Pius XI in 1926) resulted in crushing any effective resistance to the liberal forces at work in the Church and society of France.
-------------------------------------------------
Having given way on doctrine, the Ecclesia Dei institutes have held onto the liturgical issue, but only while emptying it of its doctrinal aspect. They are no longer able to defend the Mass of St. Pius V by condemning the new liturgy, nor to preach the faith of all time at their Masses by condemning the errors of today’s Rome. The shift in emphasis is not a small matter. Their fight for Tradition is limited to that of the Mass—and their speciality is emphasizing the exterior beauty of the ceremonies.
Thus, these communities have not guarded Traditional doctrine. They have come to terms with the Revolution in the Church. As Archbishop Lefebvre said: “Once they accept false religious liberty, false ecuмenism, liturgical reform, they officially contribute to the Revolution in the Church and to its destruction” (Spiritual Journey).
In addition, intellectual compromise leads to moral compromise. By dint of ceding on doctrinal points judged to be secondary, the soul takes up the habit of doing the same morally: immodest clothing, worldliness in the Ecclesia Dei chapels.
Finally, we ask: are the confirmations performed in these chapels valid? Even if these confirmations are performed in the traditional rite, there is no guarantee that their conciliar bishops use real olive oil!
2. What’s more, this text from Menzingen offers us as an example the 250 priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter “exclusively celebrating the old rite” and “not having abandoned doctrinal Tradition.” This raises a number of questions:
- What then prevents the faithful from attending the FSSP chapels? - Why not be like them in asking current Rome for a canonical recognition? - And finally, could Archbishop Lefebvre have been mistaken in 1988 in refusing to sign an agreement with Rome and in consecrating bishops without the explicit permission of the pope, thus leading us astray?
In his 20 December 2013 letter presenting this docuмent, Fr. Thouvenot, Secretary General of the Society of St. Pius X, wrote that this text “substantially confirms Bishop Fellay’s own judgement.”
Well, it does not confirm our judgement! We are totally and completely opposed to it21.
-------------------------------------------------
21. Menzingen has since issued a rather complicated « clarification », purporting to deny its favorable attitude toward the Ecclesia Dei groups. At best, this statement is “one step back” after “two steps forward.”
-------------------------------------------------
**APPEAL TO THE FAITHFUL**
Faithful to the heritage of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre and in particular to his memorable Declaration of the 21st November 1974, “we adhere with all our heart, with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic faith and the necessary conditions to maintain this faith, to eternal Rome mistress of wisdom and truth.”
According to the example of this great prelate, intrepid defender of the of the Church and the Apostolic See, “we refuse on the contrary and have always refused to follow neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant Rome which clearly manifested itself at the Second Vatican Council and after the council, in all the reforms and orientations which followed it.”
Since the year 2000 and in particular from 2012 the authorities of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X have taken the opposite direction of aligning themselves with modernist Rome.
The Doctrinal Declaration of the 15th April 2012, followed by the exclusion of a bishop and numerous priests and confirmed by the condemnation of the book, “ Monseigneur Lefebvre , Our Relations with Rome”, all that shows the pertinacity in this direction which leads to death.
“No authority, even the highest in the hierarchy, can make us abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith clearly expressed by the Magisterium of the Church for twenty centuries.”
Under the protection of Our Lady Guardian of the Faith, we intend to follow operation survival begun by Abp. Lefebvre.
In consequence, in these tragic circuмstances in which we find ourselves, we put our priesthood at the disposal of all those who want to remain faithful in the combat for the Faith.
This is why from now on, we are committed to respond to the demands which will be made on us, to sustain your families in their educational duties, to offer the priestly formation to young men who desire it, to safeguard the Mass, the sacraments and the doctrinal formation, everywhere we are required to do so.
As for you, we exhort you to be zealous apostles for the reign of Christ the King and Mary our Queen. Long Live Christ our King! Our Lady Guardian of the Faith, protect us! Saint Pius X, pray for us! The 7th January 2014 We are at the disposal of our brother Priests: several have not been able or have not wished, for the moment to associate themselves with our stance. May they not hesitate to make contact with us (discretion assured). Contact: adresse.fidele@gmail.com
We are also at the disposal of the traditional religious communities who understand the extreme gravity of the actual situation. Signatures : Fr. Roland de Mérode (prior, France) Fr. Pierre Vignalou (France) Fr. Hubert de Sainte-Marie d’Agneau (France) Fr. Nicolas Pinaud (France) Fr. Olivier Rioult (France) Fr. Matthieu Salenave (France) Fr. Pierre-Marie OP and 10 other priests from the Dominican Convent of Avrillé (France) Fr. Bruno OSB (France) Fr. Maurice Avril, founder of Notre-Dame de Salérans (France) Fr. Maurice Raffali (France) Fr. Rémi Picot (Kenya) Fr. Jean-Michel Faure (South America) Fr. Ronald Ringrose (U.S.A.) Fr. François Chazal (Asia) Fr. Florian Abrahamowicz (Italy) Fr. Martin Fuchs (Austria) Fr. Patrick Girouard (Canada) Fr. David Hewko (USA) Fr. Pierre-Célestin N’dong (Gabon) Fr. Ernesto Cardozo (Brazil) Fr. Arturo Vargas (Mexico) Fr. Fernando Altamira (Columbia) Fr. Hugo Ruiz (Mexico) Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz (Australia) Fr. Frank Sauer (Germany) Fr. Eduardo Suelo (Asia) Fr. Richard Voigt (USA) Fr. Arnold Trauner (Austria) Fr. Trincado (Mexico) Fr. Valan Rajakumar (Asia) Fr. Rafael Arizaga OSB (Mexico) Fr. Thomas d’Aquin Ferreira da Costa OSB (Brazil) Fr. Jahir Brito, FMBV (Brazil) Fr. Joaquim Daniel Maria de Sant’ana, FMBV (Brazil) [To be continued…]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avrillé Dominican's Letter n° 87 (May 13, 2014)
(...)
Towards a “canonical recognition of tolerance” ad tempus
In the April-May issue (no. 88) of Le Rocher, the bulletin of the SSPX Swiss District, on the question of an eventual agreement with Rome, Bishop Fellay responded: “Right now [that is, under Pope Francis], that would be foolish.” We fully agree. We also think that that would have been just as foolish under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. We only need to consider all those who have made an agreement with the conciliar Church and who have all betrayed the fight for the faith, without exception.
Nevertheless, despite these remarks, Bishop Fellay announced at the same time to the seminarians at Zaitzkoffen, Germany, that if Rome itself agreed to a recognition of the Society, he could not see why he should refuse it. One of the assistants reported a little after the news with enthusiasm to the superiors of religious communities, explaining that this recognition would be ad tempus (temporary). An authority of the Society confirmed that Bishop Fellay hoped to obtain a recognition of tolerance.
The April 2014 issue of the Angelus magazine is already preparing the terrain for the faithful:
"For the SSPX to wait until the Romans’ full doctrinal conversion to put itself into their hands is unrealistic. . . . The SSPX has for so long kept its distance from Rome that it risks losing all Catholic sense of hierarchy, obedience and authority."
While failing to understand how a “canonical recognition” would not be insane, whereas an “agreement” with Rome would be, these affirmations and this new perspective bring us to a number of considerations:
—when the faith is in question, gradual conversion is not possible, contrary to what happens when it is only morals at stake. One has the faith or one does not have it. The negation of a single truth suffices to lose all the Catholic faith. The only solution for moving closer to Rome is to wait for its complete conversion.
—to maintain our distance from modernist and apostate Rome is the only way to keep our faith intact. This includes faith in the primacy of Peter. Therefore, there is no need to worry: we have not lost the sense of hierarchy and authority.
—a canonical recognition of tolerance ad tempus would only be a granting of parole, where one is “free”, as long as he behaves himself... Rome will not tolerate attacking the actions of the pope, publicly saying that people must not attend the new “Mass”, that John-Paul II is not a saint, etc. When Fr. de Cacqueray wrote an excellent text against Assisi IV, Cardinal Levada told Bishop Fellay that it was unacceptable, and the result was that the General House then remained silent and did not put out a single communiqué to protest against this scandalous meeting. A canonical recognition would be inevitably a condemnation to silence, as the history of the Ecclesia Dei communities has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. As soon as a priest dares to break the silence, and attacks the scandals of modernist Rome, he will be sanctioned unmercifully by the General House, which will do all in its power to maintain the “official recognition” that it so much desired and at last obtained.
Let’s not forget the accord granted to Le Barroux monastery. Here is what they stated at the time:
“We have signed this agreement under two conditions:
* that this event not be a discredit to the person of Archbishop Lefebvre;
*that no doctrinal or liturgical counterpart be required of us, and that no silence be imposed on our anti-modernist preaching.18”
Le Barroux now defends religious liberty and ecuмenism, and the monks regularly concelebrate the new Mass when they are outside of the monastery. Those who tried to resist have been thrown out. Is this not clear?
Some object that “as long as nothing has been signed, there’s nothing to worry”. No, because the desire to attain recognition from Rome has alreadystarted to paralyze the battle of the Faith for the salvation of souls! So as not to offend the authorities, criticism of the current scandals have become more and more rare19. The faithful will already have the “Ecclesia Dei” spirit even before anything is signed.
-------------------------------------------------
18. Dom Gérard, in the 18 August 1988 issue of the journal Présent.
19. At best, we still see some criticism of Vatican II, but the current authorities are rarely called into question. For example, the letter of protest against the recent “canonizations” was actually a critique of Vatican II. The question of Pope Francis’ personal responsibility is not addressed.
Topic: Avrille Dominicans letters number 86 and 87 (Read 814 times)