Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings  (Read 80286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Reputation: +3625/-1044
  • Gender: Male
Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #30 on: January 01, 2013, 03:23:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lesser Publicized Earlier Letter and Sermon of Fr Ringrose
    Appeared in St Athanasius Weekly Bulletin


    Fr Ringrose
    St Athanasius Church
    23 Aug 2012

    It Is Not Father Ringrose Against the Society...yet.


    It has been said that Fr. Ringrose “sets his face against the Society.” ( I am not quite sure what that means. This is not a commonly used expression in English, so I suspect that originates with someone whose native language is not English.) Let me state that I have been a “friend of the Society” for over 30 years, and I do not see myself as anything less today. But when one's friend is taking a course that is dangerous and possibly self-destructive, a true friend must at least attempt to help his friend back to the right path. That is why I signed, for lack of a better term, the Declaration of Vienna.

    The Society seems to be on a dangerous path of compromising with Modernist Rome. This has become very clear to me only in the past year, although in retrospect I can see that this has been the case much longer.

    Those who are against an accord with Modernist Rome are accused of making Vatican II into a super-heresy. Well, it is! If Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies, then Vatican II is Modernism on steroids. Many things that were condemned by St. Pius X are now brought “inside the Church,” and made official doctrine. For this reason, Vatican II is far more dangerous than even the original Modernism.

    The “anti-accordistas” are accused, in not so many words, of a practical sedevacantism. Whether Benedict XVI is pope or not, isn't really the issue. He cannot be followed. He may at times say things that sound orthodox, but look at his actions -- visiting synagogues and Protestant temples and convoking Assisi III! The only safe course is to follow the popes of Tradition (i.e. the pre-Vatican II popes). This is what Archbishop Lefebvre did, and this is why we followed him. It is not that the truth can never be uttered by Benedict XVI, it is the mixture of truth and error that creates the danger. One false statement makes the whole sentence false. Any high school test-taker should know this much. The reason we cannot follow Protestantism is not that Protestantism contains no truth at all (most Protestants believe in the Trinity), but that Protestantism, along with whatever truth it may retain, also contains error. For this same reason we cannot follow Benedict. He mixes truth with error, and his deeds tell us very clearly what he is about.

    The anti-accordistas are said to be lacking a supernatural spirit. We should not mistake naivety for a supernatural spirit. Our Lord told us to be wise as serpents!

    They are told only the superiors have the grace of state to guide the Society. That is true when the superiors are upholding the Faith, but Vatican II has shown us that superiors cannot be followed when they work against the Faith. The Archbishop said that the master stroke of Satan was to use obedience to superiors to get us to be disobedient to the Faith. In Vatican II there was a separation of faith and obedience. We seem to be witnessing something similar in the Society today. Before Vatican II we could safely follow our superiors. After Vatican II we could not. Before “accord-fever” took over, the Society superiors could be safely followed. Now we have to be more cautious.

    During and after Vatican II there was an attempt to silence or marginalize anyone who was against this “new Pentecost,” as it was called. Anyone who was around then surely remembers this. The same tactics seem to be used against those who oppose a Society-Modernist Rome accord today. Those within the Society are expelled, or threatened with expulsion. If not that, they are banished to some position where they have little ability to influence anyone. Those outside the Society are said to have “turned their face against the Society,” and that those who take their guidance from the Society should not attend their Masses. One begins to wonder whether it is prudent at all to take one's guidance from the Society while it is on its present course. It seems like Vatican II all over again – a sort of Vatican II within the Society.

    It is foolishness to think that Modernist Rome has changed for the better and is now on a path back to Tradition. Just look at the actions of Benedict XVI. Even recently he appointed a man to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who should himself be investigated by it. It is because I am a friend of the Society that I, poor little nobody that I am, appeal to them to wake up! See what is happening! See what you are doing! See what a dangerous path you are on! Realize, as the Archbishop came to realize in 1988, that Rome can only be trusted once Rome wants the true Faith as much as we do. We wait for this day, and we pray for Our Lady's help to make this day come soon! Until then, we follow the true Rome of 2000 years, and we oppose the false Rome of Modernism.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5266
    • Reputation: +2928/-113
    • Gender: Female
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #31 on: January 01, 2013, 03:31:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Posted by Quo Vadis Petre on http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Another-Religious-Community-Speaks-Out

    Quote
    Public Profession and Resistance of the Familia Beatae Mariae Semper Virginis, Candeias, Salvador, Brazil

    http://fbmv.wordress.com/

    To those who maintain and, with God’s help, seek to continue maintaining the Sacred Deposit of the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Faith: Pax Christi in Regno Christi.



    See how His Lordship Bishop Richard Williamson the dauntless and serene warrior of the Faith, one of the bishops bequeathed by Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre to continue his valuable work in defence of the Faith and sanctity of the Church – this admirable Msgr. Richard Williamson has been expelled from the Society of Saint Pius X by the still respected General Council of this body, that is, by Msgr. Bernard Fellay and his Council.



    Immediately after the punishment we indirectly heard of the serene, firm, just and charitable reply which the wronged prelate gave to this.



    The event recalls another similar. It is reported that, when word came to him that he had been declared excommunicated by decree of the Roman authorities during the unfortunate reign of John Paul II, His Grace Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre declared that the decree was of no significance, since he had never belonged to the Modernist Church, born of Vatican II. It was expulsion from a body of which he had never been part.



    Our wronged and illustrious prelate, with ample reason, said the same thing in the Open Letter that he published in response to the deplorable decree of expulsion which he received from Msgr. Fellay: “… the exclusion will be more apparent than real. I have been a member of the Archbishop’s Society ever since my perpetual engagement. I have been one of its priests for 36 years. I have been one of its bishops, like yourself, for nearly a quarter of a century. That is not all to be wiped out with one stroke of a pen. Member of the Archbishop’s Society I therefore remain, and I wait”.



    “Had you remained faithful to the Archbishop’s heritage, and had I myself been notably unfaithful, gladly I would recognise your right to exclude me. But things being as they are, I hope I shall not be lacking in the respect due to your office if I suggest that, for the glory of God, for the salvation of souls, for the internal peace of the Society and for your own eternal salvation, you would do better yourself to resign as Superior General than to exclude myself. May the good Lord give you the grace, the light and the strength to perform such an outstanding act of humility and of devotion to the common good of everybody.



    And so, as I have often finished the letters I have written to you over the years, Dominus tecum: may the Lord be with you”.



    With these moving words, full of faith and charity, the admirable Bishop Williamson – defamed and, as others are courageous enough to say, a marked man – concludes the Catholic monument that is his admirable Open Letter, in response to the wretched Bishop Fellay. It is so mysterious but evident that the Good Lord transfered the Sceptre of Truth from the hands of Msgr. Lefebvre to Msgr. Richard Williamson. Behold England which, in the sixteenth century under Henry VIII, betrayed her Mother the Holy Church, now, through another Englishman make amends to the same Mother. Blessed be God!



    In the face of world-wide havoc which Catholic Liberalism has unleashed on the Church, beginning with its ruling hierarchy, Bishop Williamson perseveres, faithful to the sacred legacy of the founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.



    The bishop continues to follow the final resolve of Archbishop Lefebvre not to accept any sort of practical agreement with the Roman authorities so long as they do not repudiate the errors they have professed and declare themselves in perfect communion with the condemnations and doctrinal warnings given by the last popes antecedent to John XXIII, that is, from Gregory XVI to Pius XII.



    The continual betrayal implemented by the governing authorities of the Society of Saint Pius X in the last twelve years is now exposed world-wide before friends and enemies by the publication of Bishop Fellay’s response to the other three bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. The letter, dating from April of this catastrophic year, 2012, is of the highest importance and reveals the revolutionary spirit of the leadership of the former Society of Saint Pius X. The most tragic aspect in all this is the way in which things are being conducted. Slyly retreating from the immediate signing of a practical agreement last June (“… Rome will put up with it no longer” – Bishop Fellay), an agreement at variance with the recommendations of the Chapter held by the Society, a new and much more effective tactic was adopted; a general poisoning and paralysis of minds.



    Accordingly, instead of a hasty agreement which would have split the Society into two distinct and opposing factions, the leadership begins by an apparent change of face to reassure those who are dissatisfied, an attempt unfortunately only too successful, gently leading them in a liberal or semi-liberal direction.



    Contrary to what might be expected – how mysterious – the other principal leaders conspicuous in the Catholic Resistance within the Society, which was the vanguard of Catholic vitality in all things against the Evil One, themselves appear unperturbed, agreeing to live in harmony with the new enemies, now unequivocally unmasked. Likewise, friendly groups here and there, who have rendered glorious services in the cause of Truth now, perhaps for the sake of lesser though not negligible concerns, are laying down their arms. This unquestionably raises the danger of their being tainted, at last, little by little, quite apart from the gravity of the mission.



    How painful! It is utterly disheartening to see admirable bishops silent or inactive in the face of the increasing success of the internal encroachment by the enemy, preaching obedience to a traitorous and exquisitely artful leader, who should be ejected from power with his assistants by a sensible [General] Chapter. And this when all of us understand that the foundation of obedience is the Holy Will of God: so solidly real that, for many years now, we have resisted even orders from the Pope, who is immovable by us, so how cannot we disobey the superior of a religious order, who can be removed quite easily, when there is a true necessity?



    The Chapter of July 2012 was cowardly enough to approve the exclusion of Bishop Williamson, and to alter the directions of the Holy Founder by accepting the possibility of new conditions for an agreement with Modernist Rome, instead of maintaining faithfully the single acceptable condition laid down by Archbishop Lefebvre, namely, the conversion of Modernist Rome to the bimillenary integrity of Profession of Faith in the fullness of Catholic orthodoxy.



    The demoralisation that has descended on the Society, especially after the passive attitude displayed by leading figures of the hitherto universally respected structure, in the face of manoeuvres, many of them quite blatant, by the leader and his closest supporters, has brought the situation to such a state that, even if Bishop Fellay is replaced by someone else, trust will not be restored. Nothing but the inauguration of a Reform, like the one made by St. Teresa in the Carmelite Order, can begin slowly to raise the crumbling masterpiece of Archbishop Lefebvre.



    I cannot conclude without fulfilling the grave obligation of making an appeal to those faithful Fathers who, though in fear, have spoken and continue speaking anonymously, often with admirable good sense, against this tragedy which has befallen Catholic traditionalists, particularly the Society of Saint Pius X.



    Forgive me, Reverend Fathers, but you will pay dearly before God for your cowardice and dereliction. Are you waiting for Society leaders yet to come? But why not take the initiative, if the fire is spreading, especially in the present process of erosion, which has served only to destroy or immobilise resistance and energies? Is it fear of punishment? You are the sons of martyrs. Remember! Stand up, even if you have to die for the Faith.



    In any case, I wish also to fulfil here a serious obligation of gratitude. In the name of our little community; of souls faithful to Catholic Tradition; in the name of the Church and the world, I desire to proclaim as loudly as I can our profound gratitude to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his wise, chaste, virtuous and zealous priests for their precious contribution in promoting the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and truth. How can we forget the episcopal visits, the ordinations and confirmations, or what he did? How can we fail to see, still around us, admirable figures of true Catholic bishops, seminaries, the precious, solid books and magazines and, particularly for us lesser brethren, the ease with which we obtain Mass intentions, entrusted to us by the generous faithful, in a word, all the immense good that the great Archbishop fostered, which can be neither exhaustively recorded here nor forgotten.



    Msgr. Williamson, who obviously wishes to be saved, cannot fail to respond to the sign which the Lord of the Faith gave him by his expulsion.



    And I hope fervently that all those who have not bowed the knee before Baal will adhere firmly to him, since he is a bishop. Can there be a Church without a bishop? Ours are hard times, yet the Good Lord still raised up a bishop to preserve the Church. And when, some decades later, his work now crumbles, the Good Lord in His admirable Providence sees fit to raise up another for the tireless task of beginning again, just as does the individual who fights against his own misfortunes. Never lose heart. Begin again, and again, and again.



    May the Immaculate Heart receive ever more from us the fifteen mysteries of the Holy Rosary, and thus lead us safely to the Heart of her Son.



    I declare before God, Who will judge me, that this public profession of faith of Catholic resistance, and rejection of the Revolution is made here in my name and in the name of every member of our little community, the Familia Beatae Mariae Virginis.



    From the Monastery of Our Lady of the Faith and the Rosary, Candeias, Brazil, on 14th November 2012, memorial of the martyrdom of Saint Serapion, a Mercedarian religious and glorious English martyr for the Catholic Faith.



    Father Jahir Britto de Souza, and Religious Brothers.



    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3737
    • Reputation: +3625/-1044
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #32 on: January 01, 2013, 05:54:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Last Public Words of Opposition of Bishop de Galarreta
    Only a Couple Weeks Before He Became an Accordista at the 2012 SSPX General Chapter
    Taken from the Crusaders of the Immaculate Heart of Mary website (6-28-12):



    REFLECTIONS AROUND THE ROMAN PROPOSAL

    ROMAN TEXT

    To limit myself to the "Preliminary Note" and "doctrinal Preamble", I must say straight away that they are confusing, misleading, false and bad in essence. Even the apparent openness to criticism of the Council is enigmatic and cunning, well-trained trap (... self {?} Thread... expressions or formulations... as "interpretive criteria of Catholic doctrine necessary...", that is to say, according to" Preamble" II and III, 2, especially in fine). This document is substantially unacceptable. It is worse than the 1988 Protocol, in particular in relation to the Council and the post-conciliar magisterium.

    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    Our true believers, those who understand the problem and we have just helped to continue the straight and firm and the Tradition of faith, feared the steps I made in Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute in Rome have to testify a little bit of loyalty. You can not blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have stayed (Fideliter no. 79, p. 11).


    Fideliter said:
    What do you think of the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger establishing an oath of fidelity and that includes a profession of faith?


    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    First is the Creed, which poses no problem. He remained intact. The first and second paragraphs do not raise difficulties. These are things in common theologically. But the third is very bad.

    This is practically align what the bishops from around the world now believe. In the preamble it is also clear that this paragraph was added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-remote teaching today is that of conciliar. He should have added: as this magisterium is in full compliance with the Tradition.

    As this formula is dangerous. This shows the spirit of these people that it is impossible to agree. This is absolutely ridiculous and false as some have done-to make this oath of allegiance as a resurgence of anti-modernist oath removed from the, Council. While the venom is in the third paragraph that seems purposely to force those who have rallied to this sign of faith and assert their full agreement with the bishops.

    It is as if the time of Arianism had been told, now you agree with all that think the Arian bishops.

    No I am not exaggerating, it is clearly stated in the introduction. This is disingenuous. One may wonder if we did not want to Rome, thereby correcting the text of the Protocol. Although it does not satisfy us, it seems too in our favor in Article 3 of the doctrinal statement, because it does not express enough the need to submit to the Council.

    So I think they are catching up now. They are likely to sign these documents to the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and priests of the Fraternity, which will then be obliged to make an official act of rallying to the conciliar Church.

    Unlike the protocol, these new texts we submit to the Council and all the conciliar bishops. It is their spirit and we do not change (Fideliter, no. 70, p. 16).


    Fideliter said:
    Do you think the situation has deteriorated further since you had before-the sacred-initiated conversations that led to the drafting of the Protocol of 5 May 1988?


    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    Oh yes! For example the fact of the profession of faith which is now claimed by Cardinal Ratzinger since the beginning of 1989. This is a very serious matter. Because it asks all those who joined or could do to make a profession of faith in the documents of the Council and the post-conciliar reforms. For us it is impossible (Fideliter No. 79, p. 4).


    PRINCIPLE OF JUDGMENT

    In fact it fits perfectly with the thought and the Roman position that the Commission has expressed all along the doctrinal discussions. It is essential to the current issue to bear in mind the unmistakable conclusion that we just did on this occasion: they are not ready to give up Vatican II Council, nor the liberal doctrines of it, and their intention , their obvious desire, it brings back is to us. At most, Rome would accept a rebalancing and better formulation, again as part of the "hermeneutic of renewal in continuity". And then we can discuss and we are very useful... to endorse the revival of the reform with continuity.

    AGREEMENT IMPOSSIBLE

    The proposed document does confirm that it is illusory and unrealistic to believe that we could reach an agreement good practice, appropriate and warranted, and even just acceptable to both parties. Given the circumstances, it is certain that at the end, after long parliaments, we arrive at absolutely nothing. So, why we get involved?

    REASONS FOR REFUSAL

    Following the proposal Roman, the real question, crucial, is: should we, can we, we take the path of a "possible" agreement first practice? Is it prudent and appropriate to maintain contacts with Rome to such an agreement?

    For me the answer is clear: we must reject this path because we can not do a wrong to a property arrives (though also uncertain) and because this will necessarily lead to pain (very certain) for the good common that we have, for the Fraternity and the Family Tradition.
    The following summarizes some of the reasons for my point of view:

    OBEY WHOM, WHAT?

    I. How to submit and obey authorities who continue to think, to preach, and to govern by modernists? We have goals and purposes contrary, even different ways, how to work under them?

    The problem is not the subjective intentions, but objective, clear, the observation that we have just made their desire: Vatican II acceptance of the Council and its liberal principles. Essentially nothing has changed, there is no "return".

    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    These are things that are easy to say. Get inside the church, what does this mean? And First Church of what your talking about? If this is the conciliar Church, that we should have fought against it for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we were back in the conciliar Church to supposedly make it Catholic. It is an illusion total. These are topics that are pa superiors but the superiors who are the subjects (Fideliter No. 70, p. 6)


    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    I do not think this is a real return. It's like a fight, when one has the impression that the troops v.ont a little too far, they are kept, it slows down a little momentum of Vatican II, because the advocates of the council will too far. Besides these theologians were very wrong to be excited. These bishops are all acquired at the Council and the post-conciliar reforms, ecumenism and charismatic.

    Apparently they do something a little more moderate, some traditional religious sense, but it is not deep. The fundamental principles of the Council, the mistakes of the Council, they receive them, they put them into practice. This is no problem. Rather, I would say it is they who are the hardest with us. It is they who most require that we submit to the principles of the Council (Fideliter No. 70, p. 12).


    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    It was perfectly clear, and this illustrates their mindset. There is no question of them abandoning the new mass. On the contrary, and this is obvious. Therefore what can be appears as a concession is actually a ploy to reach away from us as possible to the faithful. It is in this perspective that they seem to always give a little more and go very far. We absolutely need to convince the faithful that it is a maneuver, that is a danger of getting into the hands of bishops and conciliar modernist Rome. This is the greatest danger that threatens them. If we fought for twenty years to avoid errors conciliar, this is not to put us now in the hands of those who profess (Fideliter No. 70, p. 13-14).


    AFFECT THE CONFESSION OF FAITH

    II. How then do not go against the defense and public confession of faith, against the public need protection the faithful and the Church?

    In this regard, if we make an agreement we are purely practical, in the present circumstances, already in the duplicity and ambiguity. The very fact is a public testimony and a message: we cannot be in "full communion" with the authorities who remain modernists.

    We can not do it either ignores the context, that is to say, events and constant teachings in the life of the Church today: repeated visits to Protestant churches and synagogues, beatification (soon to be canonized) by Jean Paul II, III Sitting, preaching time and inconvenience of religious freedom, and a long etcetera.

    Moreover, if we make an agreement we will lose freedom of speech, we must mute our public criticism of the facts, authorities and even some texts of the Council and the post-conciliar magisterium.

    To understand and illustrate the points 1 and II, just look what happened with all the rallies, from F. St. Pierre to the IBP: they are inevitably confronted with the choice to surrender or betray their commitments... and this is the first to arrive.

    Fideliter said:
    When we see that Dom Gerard and the Fraternity of St. Peter got to keep the liturgy and catechism, no-they say-they have nothing conceded, some who are troubled to find themselves in difficult situations with Rome, may be tempted to join the long turn by lassitude. "They come well, they say, to agree with Rome without having nothing dropped. "


    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    When they say they did not give up, it's wrong. They dropped the ability to counter Rome. They can not say anything. They must remain silent given the favors granted to them. They are now impossible to denounce the errors of the conciliar Church. Slowly they join, if only by the profession of faith that is requested by Cardinal Ratzinger. I think Dom Gerard is about to publish a little book written by one of his monks, on religious freedom and that will try to justify it (Fideliter No. 79, p. 4-5).


    Fideliter said:
    Since the coronations there is more contact with Rome, however, as you told, Cardinal Oddi called you saying: "We need things work out. Have a little forgiveness to the Pope and it is ready to welcome you. " So why not try this last approach and why you think it impossible?


    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. principles who now run the conciliar Church are increasingly openly contrary to Catholic doctrine.

    Before the Commission on Human Rights United Nations, Cardinal Casaroli said recently: "I wish to dwell a little on a specific aspect of the fundamental freedom of thought and act according to conscience, therefore free to religion... The Catholic Church and her Supreme Pastor, who has made human rights one of the major themes of his preaching, did not fail to recall that in a world made by man and for man , the whole organization of society has meaning insofar as it makes the human dimension of central concern. " Hear it in the mouth of a cardinal! God does not talk about it!


    For his part Cardinal Ratzinger, by presenting a river on the relationship between the Magisterium and theologians, says he says "for the first time with clarity" that "decisions of the Magisterium can not be the last word on the matter as such" but "a kind of interim arrangement... The core remains stable but the particular aspects which have an influence on the circumstances of time may need further corrections. In this regard it may be noted the declarations of the popes of the last century. Decisions antimodernist have done a great service... but they are now outdated. " And now, the page of modernism is turned! These reflections are absolutely insane.

    Finally the Pope is more than ever ecumenist. All misconceptions of u Council continue to flourish, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They hide less. It is therefore absolutely inconcevabl e that we can agree to work with a similar hierarchy (Fideliter No. 79, p. 3-4).


    Fideliter said:
    You said, pointing to Dom Gerard and others: "They betrayed us. Now they give out to those who demolish the church, the Liberals, the modernists. " Is not that a bit harsh ?


    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    But no. They appealed to me for fifteen years. It's not me who went to pick them. It is they themselves who came to me and ask for support, to ordinations, the friendship of our priests along with the opening of our priories to help financially. They all used us as they could. We did a good heart and even generously. I was pleased to make these ordinations, to open our homes so they can benefit from the generosity of our benefactors... And then, suddenly, I phone: we no longer need you, it's over. We will go to the Archbishop of Avignon. We are now in agreement with Rome. We signed a protocol.

    This is not a light heart that we had trouble with Rome. It's not for fun that we had to fight. We did it for principles, to keep the Catholic faith. And they agreed with us. They collaborated with us. And then suddenly we abandon the fight for true ally with demolition under the pretext that they be given some privileges. This is unacceptable.

    They have virtually abandoned the fight of faith. They can not attack Rome.

    This was also the Father of Blignières. He changed completely. He who had written a whole volume to condemn religious freedom, he now writes in favor of religious freedom. This laugh is not serious. We can no longer count on men like these, who did not understand the doctrinal question.
    I think in any case they commit a grave error. They have gravely sinned by acting as they did, knowingly and with a casualness implausible (Fideliter No. 79, p. 6).


    QUESTION DOCTRINAL, ESSENTIAL PROBLEM

    III. We must look at the context in which they intend to incorporate us. An agreement is, like it or not, we integrate into their system in a thinking and reality data that do not depend on us but who depend on their thinking, their theology and their action. And this is how they will be presented (see Campos, text signed by Mgr. Licinio).

    But we have just seen in doctrinal discussions what is their design: pure modernism revised and corrected.

    In particular there will be implied that we would accept three principles implicitly:

    1. Relativism of truth, even dogmatic, need for pluralism in the Church. For them we have the experience and charisma of Tradition, good and useful to the Church, but only partial truth.

    System and their modernist dialectic (claiming the contrary) allows them to integrate ourselves in the name of "unity in diversity", as positive and necessary Il1ême, provided we are in full communion (obedience to authority and respect for others and ecclesial) and that we remain open to dialogue, always looking for the truth.

    Proof of this is that they are ready to accept after the statement, both sides, a doctrinal opposition to faith-and essential-land.

    How implicitly accept this principle, by explicit integration in their system and the official interpretation they give, then it is the foundation of modernism and is destructive of all natural and supernatural truth?

    It is accepting the relativism of Tradition, the only true faith.

    2. Can be interpreted in accordance with any Vatican II Tradition. We can help find, if necessary, the "right" interpretation. This is the "hermeneutic of continuity". "The hermeneutic of rupture" (while it is true) must be rejected, because neither teaching nor the post-conciliar Vatican II major have been mistaken. After the discussions and the proposed document, it is only too clear, they would accept us as part of the first and reject the second.

    This is Vatican II endorsement.

    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    The response to our objections which have been sent from Rome by intermediaries, all tended to show that there was no change but a continuation of the Tradition. These are statements that are worse than those of the Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom. This is the real official lie.

    As long as we remain attached to Rome conciliar ideas: religious freedom, ecumenism, collegiality... will be wrong. This is serious because it goes into practical achievements. This is what justifies the Pope's visit to Cuba. Pope visits or receives Communist leaders torturers and murderers with blood on the hands of Christians, as if they were as worthy as decent people (Fideliter No. 70, p.10).


    3. The truth of faith is changing, as dogmas, formulas and dogmatic definitions of faith are only significant approaches to the mysteries of faith. The core remains, everything else evolves with time, culture, historical circumstances, experience and the experience of God's people.

    Therefore Tradition is alive, Tradition is Vatican II, condemnations of liberalism and modernism are exceeded.

    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    That's why they wanted Vatican II is a pastoral council and not a dogmatic council, because they do not believe in infallibility. They do not want a definitive truth. Truth must live and must evolve. It may possibly change over time, with history, science, etc.... Infallibility, she never fixed a formula and a truth that no longer change. That they can not believe it. It is we who are with infallibility, it is not the conciliar Church. It is against the infallibility, it is absolutely certain.

    Cardinal Ratzinger is against the infallibility of the Pope is against the infallibility of its philosophical training. Whether one understands us, we are not against the Pope as he represents all the values of the apostolic see, which are immutable, the See of Peter, but against the Pope is a Modernist who does not believe in his infallibility, which makes ecumenism. Obviously we are against the conciliar Church which is practically. schismatic , even if they do not accept it. In practice it is virtually a Church excommunicated, because 'it's a modernist church. They are the ones ql: i you excommunicate us, then we want to remain Catholic. We want to stay with the Catholic Pope and the Catholic Church. That's the difference (Fideliter No. 70, p. 8).


    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    But specifically, we are not in the same truth. For them the truth is progressive, the truth changes with time, and Tradition: Vatican II is today. Tradition for us is what the Church has taught since the apostles to the present. For them, no, it's tradition Vatican II resumes itself all that was said earlier. Historical circumstances are such that now we must believe that Vatican II did. This has happened before, here no longer exists. It belongs to the time spent. That is why the Cardinal did not hesitate to say "The council is an anti-Vatican II Syllabus." One wonders how a Cardinal of the Holy Church can say that the Council of Vatican II is an anti-Syllabus, very official act of Pope Pius IX encyclical Quanta Cura in. It is unimaginable.
    I said one day to Cardinal Ratzinger: "Eminence, it is necessary that we choose: either religious freedom as in the Council, or Ie Syllabus of Pius IX. They are contradictory and should be chosen. "Then he told me:" But my Lord we are not at the time of the Syllabus. - Ah! I said, then truth changes with time. So what you say Today?, Tomorrow it will no longer true. There is no way to agree, it is in continual evolution. It becomes impossible to speak."

    They have that in mind. He repeated: "There is more than a church is the Church of Vatican II. Represents Vatican II-Tradition." Unfortunately, the Church opposes Vatican II Tradition. This is not the same (Fideliter No. Occasional -29 to 30 June, p. 15).


    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is very important, but it's not the most important. The most important is that of faith. For us it is resolved. We have the faith of all times, the Council of Trent, the Catechism of St. Pius X, of all councils and all the popes before Vatican II.
    For years they tried to Rome to show that everything in the Council was fully compliant with the Tradition. Now they are discovered. Cardinal Ratzinger had never spoken with such clarity. There is no tradition. There is more deposition to be transmitted. Tradition in the Church, that is what the Pope said today. You must submit to what the Pope and the bishops said today. For them this is the tradition, the famous tradition alive, the only ground of our condemnation.

    Now they no longer seek to prove that what they say is consistent with what was written Pius IX promulgated to what the Council of Trent. Not all this is over, it is exceeded, as the cardinal says Ratzinger. It is clear and they could have said so sooner. It was not worth PARLET us to discuss. Now is the tyranny of authority, because he no longer any rule. We can no longer refer to the past.

    In a sense the thing now becoming clearer. They always give us more reason. We deal with people who have a different philosophy than ours, another way of seeing, which are influenced by all philosophers and modern subjectivist. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is changing. This is an absolutely Masonic design. This is really the destruction of faith. Fortunately, we, we continue to build on the tradition! (Fideliter, no. 79, p. 9).



    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    The Pope wants to unity outside the faith. It is a communion. Communion to whom? What? What?, It is no longer a unit. This can be done only in the unity of the faith. This is what the Church has always taught. It is. Why there were the missionaries, to convert to the catholic faith ic. Now you must not convert. The Church is no longer a hierarchical society, it is a communion. Everything is distorted. It is the destruction of one (1 notion of the Church, Catholicism. This is very serious and this explains why many are Catholics who abandon the faith, (Fidelitei, no. 79, p. 8).


    THE REAL BATTLE DOCTRINAL

    In all revolutions, "the frenzy" and "terror" there is a time of consolidation in the new situation, a period of institutionalization. On the other hand it is foreseeable that, if returned there, it is gradual. So we know in advance that there will be phases - more confusing: next to a best in practice and perhaps the intention, a little more order (all relative to the worst ) there. will necessarily worsen over the clarity of things, the error will be misleading , and seductive, less obvious and more subtle, in short, much more dangerous... able to deceive even the elect. The error is more ambiguous and dangerous when it collects more to the truth, such as counterfeit currency.

    So we know in advance that our struggle and our position will be less and less understood, more difficult to explain, justify and maintain. Things will necessarily evolve like that: it is necessary to a proper response from us, so to speak, inversely proportional to the confusion.

    The three reasons cited above show that we are in this phase of a false restoration, of a false return. The attitude of the Pope and the Roman Curia, much more confused, contradictory, seductive and has the appearance of Tradition.

    One must distinguish the good aspects of the current pontificate, incidental or occasional, education and leadership doctrine.

    But our fight is doctrinal. This is the field of doctrine that is played in victory or defeat of faith and therefore of all church property.

    Cardinal Pie said:
    One would think that some men do not want some order in the facts as to revive the disorder with impunity in their minds, and they require some physical security in the sky that to have the right to again, without too much danger, the old fabric of their lies for a moment interrupted by fear? fools, for not yet understood that it is ultimately the field of doctrine that is won or lost the battles that decide the future! No, a whole portion of society can not keep it longer this attitude in which we are still condemned to painting: the pen still in hand to teach the same principles, under arms for exterminate the consequences down the happy evening in the street to shoot the acts caused by the doctrines and by the examples in the morning. Contradiction constantly renewed, and that will continue only so long as men who have some authority and some influence over their fellows, sincerely embrace the Christian truth and practice (Works, Vol. II, p. 170-171).


    Fideliter said:
    Cardinal Oddi said recently: "I am convinced that the break will not last long and that Archbishop Lefebvre regain the early Church of Rome." Also there be ready for the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger felt that "Lefebvre" is not over. In your last letter you said the Holy Father to wait more time for the return of Rome to Tradition. What do you think of a possible resumption of talks with Rome?


    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    We do not have the same way of thinking about reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees in the direction of reducing us, bring us back to Vatican II. We, as we see a return from Rome to Tradition. It does not get along. It is a dialogue of the deaf. I can not speak much for the future, because mine is behind me. But if I live a little and assuming that by some time Rome will make a call, we want to see us again, resume language, at that time it was I who would pose conditions. I will not accept as being in the situation we found ourselves at conferences. It's over.

    I would ask the question in terms of doctrine: Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you. Is - that you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei, Libertas Leo XIII, Pius X Pascendi, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Pius XII, Humani Generis? Are you in full communion with the pope and with their claims? Do you still accept the anti-modernist oath? Do you support the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
    If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is unnecessary to speak. As you will not have agreed to reform the Council in considering the doctrine of the Popes who preceded you, there is no possibility of dialogue. It's useless.

    The positions would be clearer as well.
    This is not a small thing between us. It is not enough we are told: you can tell the old Mass, but we must accept that. No, it's not that we object to is the doctrine. It is clear. (Fideliter, NiO. 66, p. 12-14).


    ENTER THE CONFLICT

    IV. Move towards a practical agreement would be to deny our word and our commitments to our priests, our faithful, and Rome in front of everyone. This would have hugely negative consequences ad intra and ad extra.

    There is no change in the doctrinal point of view from Rome that would justify ours. On the contrary, the discussions have shown they will not accept anything in our criticisms.

    It would be absurd for us to go in the direction of a practical agreement after the result of discussions and findings. Otherwise, one would think that Msgr. Riffan and Father Aulagnier were right.

    Such an approach would show a serious diplomatic weakness on the part of the fraternity, and indeed, more than diplomatic. It would be a lack of consistency, honesty and firmness, which would have effects like loss of credibility and moral authority we enjoy.

    IMPLOSION OF BROTHERHOOD

    V. The mere fact of us down this path will lead us in doubt, dispute, distrust, parties, and especially the division. Many superiors and priests have a legitimate problem of consciousness and will oppose it. The authority and the very principle of authority will be questioned, undermined.

    We can not go to the trailer in our contacts with Rome, we must keep the commands, mark the time and conditions. So we need a line defined in advance, clear and firm, independent of stress and possible maneuvers Roman.

    Accordingly, it is not the moment to change the decision of the Chapter of 2006 (no practical agreement without resolving the doctrinal issue) and it is not right or prudent to embark on preparing for the senses otherwise, before there is in us the conviction, consensus and the decision to change, otherwise the only cause division and, by reaction, a little war, anarchy.

    WARNING ALLOWED

    VI. The warning of RP Ferrer, secretary of the Cardo Cafiizares: "Do not agree with Rome, she can not keep it promise you." We received other warnings similar to Rome.

    KEEP THE LINE

    So what to do, what to say?

    What we have better to do this is to keep the line that has ensured the cohesion and survival of the Brotherhood and gave lots of fruits vis-à-vis Rome to the Church. They hesitate, they begin to sell their building collapses, they can not live without us... Remain steadfast in our policy and expect that there are clear conditions secure and guaranteed. As reported Bishop. Lefebvre after the coronation, it will be, unfortunately, the situation worsens at home... until they are ready to release Vatican II.

    We could answer that views the outcome of the discussions, for faithfulness and loyalty to God, to our consciousness, even to the Church and to the Holy See, we can not engage in a practical way first, but as we have already said, we remain open to cooperate or participate in a study and doctrinal criticism of the Council.

    FOLLOW THE PROVIDENCE

    If they then cut us a break from the constant voltage means that the contacts for the Brotherhood, would be welcome and, in my view, providential. Anyway, knowing they would soon long to talk with us.

    In conclusion, we must not get ahead of Providence, it is she who will solve the crisis. We must be very careful about the temptation sub specie boni , avoid the rush, wait, and only go down that path when there will be no one doubts that Rome (the Pope) wants the Tradition, they have a fair idea of it, it is prudent and that it is the will of God. We need more reasons to change that line to stay in safe and proven that we have. However, the opposite happens.

    Archbishop Lefebvre said:
    Without dwelling on the fact that many things were not, the focus was on the high expectations that give rise to the charismatic and Pentecostal. In Rome, they want to be convinced of that. They stubbornly closed their eyes to the catastrophe of the Council and they are trying to accomplish , on the ruin to which they are currently leading the Church. And they want us to enter into this current. If we take a step in that direction, if we submit to authority without warranty, more or less long term, two, three or five years, we will lose the tradition. But we do not want to lose it. We therefore can not submit ourselves to authorities who want us to lose the tradition.

    As I have already stated, if I went to Rome to discuss, it is because I wanted to try to see if we could reach agreement with the ecclesiastical authorities, while putting us away from their liberalism and safeguarding Tradition. Force me has been clear that no agreement could be reached that gives us both warranties and the belief that Rome wanted to sincerely contribute to the preservation of tradition.

    I waited until June 5 to write to the Pope: "I'm sorry, but we can not hear us. You do not have the same goal as us. By this access, ord your goal is to bring us back to the Council. Mine is rather to be able to maintain outside the Council and its influences" (Fideliter, no. 68, p. 15).


    BEWARE OF DANGER!

    For the good of the Brotherhood and Tradition, must be closed as quickly as possible "Pandora's box", to avoid the stigma and the demolition of the authority, disputes, dissensions and divisions, perhaps no return.

    In this sense, the real question to be answered laquelie esfla: what are the other requirements, ad intra and ad extra, in the hypothetical case of a proposal "good", totally acceptable in itself, to try to make an agreement?

    The authorities cited by Archbishop Lefebvre allow us to spread it with clarity and firmness.

    + Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18074
    • Reputation: +8204/-625
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #33 on: January 06, 2013, 04:27:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Source thread:

    Quote from: Bernardus
    From December 7, 2012

    http://www.mediafire.com/view/?iqg59erkf9h3gy5






    Our Lady of Mount Carmel
    1730 N. Stillwell Rd., Boston Ky 40107

    Dear Friends and Benefactors,

    The Mayan Calendar predicts that the world will end on December 21,
    2012. According to the Agence France-Press, Pope Benedict XVI’s
    approach to the consummation of the world is more encouraging:

    During his weekly Angelus address from the window of his Vatican
    apartments on St. Peter’s Square, Benedict spoke of extracts from
    the Bible that speak of ‘‘the sun and moon going out, the stars falling
    from the sky’’. Several films and documentaries have promoted
    the idea that the ancient Mayan calendar predicts that doomsday is
    next month, on December 21, 2012.

    But Benedict said that Jesus ‘‘does not describe the end of the world,
    and when he uses apocalyptic images, he is not acting the prophet.
    On the contrary, he wants to stop his disciples of every epoch from
    being curious over dates, forecasts, and wants to give them the key
    to ... the right road to walk today and tomorrow to enter into the
    eternal life,’’ he said.

    As many as 90,000 people are expected to attend a massive event in
    Guatemala City on December 21, just in case the world actually does
    end, while tour groups are promoting doomsday-themed getaways.
    (Agence France-Presse:
     http://www.theage.com.au/world/pope-dismisses-december-doomsday-20121119-29l4q.html )

    Did the Mayans have a better understanding of the world’s end than
    our present Holy Father? How has it happened that the head of the
    Catholic Church has said, "Jesus is not acting the prophet.”?

    At least the Mayans knew the world would end in a calamity.  Pope
    Benedict XVI did not affirm the teaching of the end of the world, an
    essential Truth in our Credo!

    2012 will not be the year of the end of the world. But was it the year
    that has marked the most pivotal time in the history of our beloved
    Society of St. Pius X? Has it been the year that ushered in a new era
    for Tradition? Or, has it been the year in which the SSPX World of
    Archbishop Lefebvre came to an end?


    In the March 2012 edition of the SSPX internal publication Cor Unum,
    SSPX Superior General Bishop Fellay communicated to the members of
    the Fraternity that the SSPX must have a new attitude towards Rome
    because things in Rome have changed. (cf. Cor Unum March 2012).

    On fourteenth day of July in 2012, the General Chapter of the Society
    of St. Pius X issued a Statement that was a startling departure from
    the clear position of both Archbishop Lefebvre and the previous
    General Chapter of 2006. The new Chapter declared: "The novelties
    of the Second Vatican Council remain tainted with errors... we find
    our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium.’’ Does this
    ‘‘Magisterium’’ include Vatican II or not? Is this not ambiguous
    language? This Neo-SSPX also declared that it was ‘‘waiting for the
    day when an open and serious debate [with Rome] will become
    possible.’’

    In the Old-SSPX world of Archbishop Lefebvre, there was not even a
    thought of waiting for a ‘‘serious debate to become possible.’’ The
    Old-SSPX did not wait; it condemned Vatican II and its wicked spirit
    boldly, publicly, and clearly in the face of popes, bishops, priests, and
    the entire world, without respect of persons. The Old-SSPX of
    Archbishop Lefebvre declared Vatican II to be the fruit of a New
    Conciliar Magisterium containing heresies and errors. In the Old-SSPX,
    we did not "find our sure guide in (Ed. note: New Rome's)
    uninterrupted Magisterium which by its teaching authority transmits
    the revealed deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that
    the entire Church has professed always and everywhere’’.  We simply
    repeated the teaching of our Founder who said in his 1974
    Declaration: ‘‘It is . . . impossible for any conscientious and faithful
    Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way
    whatsoever.’’ (Archbishop Lefebvre Declaration Nov. 21, 1974).

    2012 was the year in which that Old-SSPX world ended in
    Menzingen
    (SSPX Headquarters).

    The Neo-SSPX world, born officially on July 14, 2012 brought to our
    chapels ambiguous language, mixing the two opposed
    Magisteria into a two-in-one Magisterium — ‘‘two in one flesh.’’  The
    Neo-SSPX looks at the battle between Tradition and Modernism as
    a fight between spouses in a rough marriage, whereas the
    Old-SSPX simply saw Modernist Rome as something "we refuse
    and have always refused’’ (ABL 1974 Declaration) since such a union
    was an unthinkable adultery.

    The Neo-SSPX gave us new conditions to accompany its new
    doctrine. ‘‘We have determined and approved the conditions for
    an eventual canonical normalization.’’ It had to replace the old
    condition of Roman conversion before any submission to it.
    Hence six new conditions accompanied the July 14 Neo-Charter of
    our Neo-SSPX including requesting of Rome the ‘‘freedom
    to preach the truth’’ —  a freedom that no martyr ever asked for
    (1st condition), and a willingness to submit our sheep to the
    Modernist wolves (2nd ‘‘wishable’’ condition).  2012 was the year
    that these new conditions of compromise replaced the Catholic
    combat of Archbishop Lefebvre who considered it a most grave
    obligation to preach the truth with or without permission
    and
    would not allow the sheep begging him for the bread of the pure
    Faith to be placed under the authority of Modernist wolves.

    Archbishop Lefebvre expected and hoped for nothing less than the
    complete conversion of the Conciliar Rome of Modernist
    Evolutionism back to the Eternal Rome of the Unchanging Holy
    Roman Catholic Faith of her forefathers.

    2012 marked the end of the Old-SSPX unity in the Doctrine of the
    Faith which it replaced with a new unity found in the Person
    of its Superior General; ‘‘united with its Superior General’’ (July 14,
    2012 General Chapter Statement).

    2012 was the first year of visible division within the ranks of the
    SSPX. It was the year of division even among its four Bishops.
    Three were against one and one against three. (April 7 and April 14
    letters of the bishops to each other). This division was on the very
    nature of the ongoing battle of Catholics against the modernist
    heresy. The most grave sign of this division was the expulsion of
    Bishop Richard Williamson, and the sidelining of Bishop Tissier, now
    in unofficial ‘‘exile’’ in Chicago. It was the year of refusals of
    ordinations, refusals of Communion, expulsion of priests, new
    declarations, threats to the faithful, confusion in the souls of some,
    fear in the souls of many, and a sorrow in the hearts of all who love
    the work of the holy Archbishop Lefebvre.

    2012 was the year of the adoption by the SSPX leadership of a new
    language of ambiguity, and an entirely new direction. 2012
    marked the year in which SSPX pulpits warned the faithful, not
    against the errors and heresies of the Council, but against applying
    themselves to the study of the crisis within Tradition.
    2012 marked
    the year when the pulpits of the SSPX were turned into organs
    of dissemination of a party line, which calls for the faithful to do no
    more than to trust and obey the Superiors, who have the ‘‘grace
    of state’’ to know better what is the right path for all.

    The pulpits of the SSPX once instructed the faithful to study the crisis
    in the Church, in order to comprehend the evils of Modernism and
    the New Mass, as well as to know and love the answer to
    this crisis — the True Faith, the True Mass, the True Sacraments,
    and the True fulfillment of Our Lady’s request at Fatima, which will
    usher in the reestablishment of the Catholic social order.
    In the glory days of the SSPX, chapels were opened in basements
    and garages. In those basements, Grandma, her little grandchildren
    and the few wayward souls in attendance would agree with the
    priest’s preaching on the Only Faith which matches the world
    God made; though in a Mass with the non-matching vestments.
    When what the priest had said was repeated to Grandpa, whose
    hearing aid wasn’t working — though all at Mass could hear its
    whistle — he too would heartily agree and dream of the future of
    Tradition returning to the Church in which he was baptized . . . of the
    victory of Mary. . . into every corner of the world.

    What happened? ‘‘I have this against thee, that thou hast left thy
    first charity’’
    (Apoc. 2:4).  The Lord cautioned the church of Ephesus:
    ‘‘Remember therefore, from whence thou hast fallen, and repent
    and do the former works: or else I will come to thee, and will move
    thy lamp stand out of its place, unless thou repentest.’’
    (Apoc. 2:5).

    What are we to do? We must continue to ‘‘work out our salvation
    in fear and trembling’’ remaining true to the Faith of all time waiting
    for the day of Rome's conversion through Our Lady's victory
    prophesied at Fatima.

    We now have a fledgling web site sspxmary.com which will be
    updated as much as possible with latest Mass schedules and so on.
    Another web site inthissignyoushallconquer.com will also try to keep
    you up to date. Enclosed are two flyers, one ‘‘Introibo ad altare
    Dei’’
    on our present SSPX crisis with a look at what we must do,
    namely, persevere without change in the work and line of our holy
    Founder; and the other with some quotes of our Founder on ‘‘The
    Roman Question.’’

    There are now five priests living in the ‘‘priory of expelled padres’’ at
    Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Please keep Frs. David Hewko, Francois
    Chazal (from France), Arturo Vargas (from Mexico), Richard Voigt,
    myself, as well as the 30 or so other priests, independents and
    SSPXers, who are staying faithful in the firm line set out by Archbishop
    Lefebvre for our ongoing battle against an ever-increasing Modernism
    in our world,

    In Christ,
    [signed: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer]



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18074
    • Reputation: +8204/-625
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #34 on: January 21, 2013, 03:49:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Source website



    Fellay argues case for reconciliation with Rome.
    Posted on May 12, 2012 Leave a Comment

    Letter of the General Council of the Society of Saint Pius X.

    We publish an important letter from the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, together with two other members of the Society’s General Council, First Assistant Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Second Assistant Fr. Alain-Marc Nély.  The letter is dated April 14, 2012 and has been addressed to the other SSPX bishops Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson, and De Galarreta.

    The letter is of great moment.  It indicates that Bishop Fellay and his team are attempting to lead the SSPX toward a final resolution of its canonical status in union with Rome. The letter explains the policy of the General Council in its negotiations with Rome.  However, the letter also indicates that Fellay is at odds with the other three SSPX bishops and that, unless he can win them over, a real schism that could develop around the intransigent three.

    This letter was first translated by, and published on, the Rorate Caeli blogspot.



    SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X

    Menzingen, April 14, 2012


    The Most Reverend Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson, and De Galarreta

    Your Excellencies,

    Your collective letter addressed to the members of the General Council received our full attention. We thank you for your solicitude and charity. Allow us in our turn, with the same concern for justice and charity, to make the following observations.

    First of all, the letter indeed mentions the gravity of the crisis gripping the Church and precisely analyzes the nature of the ambient errors that pullulate in the Church. Nonetheless, the description is marred by two defects in relation to the reality in the Church: it is lacking in a supernatural spirit and at the same time it lacks realism.

    The description lacks a supernatural spirit. To read your letter, one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church whose seat is at Rome is indeed the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured, to be sure, a planta pedis usque ad verticem capitis, but a Church that in spite of all still has as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One gets the impression that you have been so scandalized that you no longer accept that it can still be the true Church. For you, it would seem to be a question whether Benedict XVI is still the legitimate pope. And if he is, there is a question as to whether Jesus Christ can still speak through him. If the pope expresses a legitimate will concerning us which is good and which does not order anything contrary to the commandments of God, have we the right to neglect or to dismiss this will? Otherwise, on what principle do you base your actions? Do you not believe that if Our Lord commands us, He will also give us the means to carry on our work? Now, the pope has let us know that an abiding concern for the regularization of our situation for the good of the Church lies at the very heart of his pontificate, and also that he knew very well that it would be easier both for him and for us to leave things as they stand now. And so it is indeed a decided and legitimate will that he is expressing.

    With the attitude you recommend, no room is left for the Gideons or the Davids or for those who count on the Lord’s help. You reproach us with being naïve or fearful, but rather it is your vision of the Church that is too human, and even fatalistic. You see the dangers, the plots, the difficulties, but you no longer see the assistance of grace and of the Holy Ghost. If one grants that Divine Providence leads the affairs of men while safeguarding their liberty, it is also needful to admit that the gestures in our favor over the last several years are also under its guidance. Now, they trace a line– not straight–but clearly in favor of Tradition. Why should this suddenly stop when we are doing our utmost to be faithful and to intensify our prayer? Will the good God let us fall at the most critical moment? That does not make a lot of sense, especially as we are not trying to impose on Him the least self-will, but are trying to examine events closely so as to discern what God wants, and being disposed to all that shall please Him. At the same time, your description is lacking in realism as regards both the degree of the errors and their extent.

    Degree: Within the Society, some are making the conciliar errors into super heresies, absolute evil, worse than anything, in the same way that the liberals have dogmatized this pastoral council. The evils are sufficiently dramatic; there is hardly any reason to exaggerate them further (cf. Roberto de Mattei, Une histoire jamais écrite, p. 22; Mgr. Gherardini, Un débat à ouvrir, p. 53, etc.). Needful distinctions are not being made, whereas Mgr. Lefebvre did make the necessary distinctions on the subject of liberals several times. i This failure to distinguish is leading one or the other of you to a hardening of your position. This is a grave matter because this caricature no longer corresponds with reality and in future it will logically end in a real schism. And it may well be that this fact is one of the arguments that urges me to delay no longer in responding to the Roman authorities.

    Extent: On the one hand, you saddle the current authorities with all the errors and evils to be found in the Church while leaving aside the fact that they are trying at least partly to disengage themselves from the most serious of them (the condemnation of the “hermeneutic of rupture” denounces real errors). On the other hand, you act as if ALL of them are implicated in this pertinacity (“they’re all modernists,” “all are rotten”). Now that is manifestly false. The great majority are still caught up in the movement, but not all.

    So that, coming to the most crucial question, the possibility of our surviving in the conditions of recognition of the Society by Rome, we do not reach the same conclusion as you do.

    Let us note in passing that it was not we who were looking for a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused a priori to consider, as you ask, the Pope’s offer. For the common good of the Society, we would prefer by far the current solution of an intermediary status quo, but clearly, Rome is not going to tolerate it any longer.

    In itself, the solution of the proposed personal prelature is not a trap. This is apparent from the fact, first of all, that the present situation in April 2012 is quite different from that of 1988. To pretend that nothing has changed is an historical error. The same evils afflict the Church, the consequences are even worse and more obvious than before; but at the same time we have observed a change of attitude in the Church, helped by the gestures and acts of Benedict XVI toward Tradition. This new movement, which began at least ten years ago, has been growing. It has reached a good number (still a minority) of young priests, seminarians, and even includes a small number of young bishops who clearly stand out from their predecessors, who confide in us their sympathy and support, but who are still pretty well stifled by the dominant line in the hierarchy in favor of Vatican II. This hierarchy is losing speed. This perception is not an illusion, and it shows that it is no longer illusory for us to contemplate an “intramural” struggle, the difficulty of which we are not unaware. I have been able to observe at Rome that however much the talk about the glories of Vatican II we’ll be dinned with is still on the lips of many, it is no longer in people’s heads. Fewer and fewer believe it.

    This concrete situation, with the canonical solution that has been proposed, is quite different from that of 1988. And when we compare the arguments that Archbishop Lefebvre made at the time, we conclude that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not lose our sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder.

    The history of the Church shows that recovery from the conflicts that beset it usually occurs gradually, slowly. And once one problem is resolved, something else starts up—oportet haereses esse. To require that we wait until everything is regulated before reaching what you call a practical agreement is not realistic. Seeing how things happen, it is likely that it will take decades for this crisis to come to an end. But to refuse to work in the field because there are still weeds that may crowd out or hamper the good grain is a curious reading of the Biblical lesson: It is our Lord Himself who gave us to understand by the parable of the wheat and the cockle that there will always be, in one form or another, weeds to be uprooted and grappled with in His Church…

    You cannot know how your attitude these last months–quite different for each one of you–has been hard on us. It has kept the Superior General from communicating and sharing with you these weighty matters, in which he would have so willingly involved you had he not found himself before such a strong and passionate incomprehension. How he would have liked to be able to count on you, on your advice and counsel at such a delicate passage in our history. It has been a great trial, perhaps the greatest of his superiorate. Our venerated founder gave the bishops of the Society a precise function and duties. He made it clear that the unifying principle of our society is the Superior General. But for some time now, you have tried, each in his own way, to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, even publically. This dialectic between truth and faith on one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. At least he might have hoped that you would try to understand the arguments that have moved him to act as he has these last years, according to the will of Divine Providence.

    We do pray for each one of you, that in this battle which is far from being over we may find ourselves all together for the greater glory of God and for the love of our dear Society.

    May our Risen Lord and our Lady deign to protect you and bless you,

    +Bernard Fellay

    Niklaus Pfluger+

    Alain-Marc Nély+
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3737
    • Reputation: +3625/-1044
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #35 on: January 23, 2013, 12:52:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Suppressed Letter of Fr. Paul Morgan
    British District Superior
    November, 2011

    (Removed from the British SSPX website the following day)


    The meeting of the Society’s superiors took place at Albano on 7-8th
    October as announced in last month’s newsletter, and Bishop Fellay
    did indeed use this opportunity to discuss the ‘Doctrinal Preamble’
    text as received from Cardinal Levada on 14th September.
    The first day of the meeting covered three issues: an overview of
    the contacts with Rome since 1987; a summary of the doctrinal discussions;
    and an oral exposition of the Doctrinal Preamble document
    itself.
    With regard to the doctrinal talks it was disappointing to note that
    the Roman commission failed to acknowledge the break between
    traditional and conciliar teachings. Instead it insisted upon the
    5
    ‘hermeneutic (interpretation) of continuity,’ stating that the new teachings
    included and improved the old!
    It was interesting to learn that the 14th September meeting had not
    touched upon the doctrinal talks at all, but rather was dedicated to expounding
    possible practical solutions for the Society.
    So it was perhaps not surprising to learn that the proposed doctrinal
    basis for any canonical agreement in fact contained all those elements
    which the Society has consistently rejected, including acceptance of
    the New Mass and of Vatican II as expressed in the New Catechism.
    Indeed, the document itself conveys the impression that there is no crisis
    in the Church...
    Hence the stated consensus of those in attendance was that the Doctrinal
    Preamble was clearly unacceptable and that the time has certainly
    not come to pursue any practical agreement as long as the doctrinal
    issues remain outstanding. It also agreed that the Society should
    continue its work of insisting upon the doctrinal questions in any contacts
    with the Roman authorities.
    In many ways we can see the hand of Providence in this meeting, falling
    as it did on the Feast of the Holy Rosary, given the clarification of
    Rome’s persistence in the modern errors, and the consequent necessity
    of continuing with the fight against modernism through fidelity to
    Catholic Tradition.
    The second day of the meeting was dedicated to its original theme, that
    of communications and the media.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3737
    • Reputation: +3625/-1044
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #36 on: February 03, 2013, 11:25:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  •       7     0     
    Mosteiro da Santa Cruz
    Nova Friburgo , RJ Brasil
    DECLARATION
    UT FIDELES INVENIAMUR

    29 January 2013
    St. Francis de Sales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Attached file: Jan 29 2013 Declaration Monastery of Santa Cruz Nova Friburgo Brazil.pdf (4 downloads, 68 KB)
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3737
    • Reputation: +3625/-1044
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #37 on: February 10, 2013, 01:39:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • THE CURRENT CRISIS

    I) DOCTRINAL TREASON


    CONSIDERING


    1) a) What Archbishop has said about the greatest danger to traditionalists was to put themselves in the hands of modernist Rome and b) Bishop Fellay recently saying those who want the good of the Church want also the Society of St. Pius X to be officially recognized by modernist Rome (which is the same as being put in the modernist's hands);

    2) a) What Archbishop said about Rome preparing a trap by offering us every advantage we could desire to settle our situation and b) Bishop Fellay saying that to currently think this way is a lack of realism and supernatural spirit;

    3) a) What Archbishop said about Benedict XVI (then Cardinal still) looking to deschristianize the world and b) Bishop Fellay saying Pope Benedict XVI takes very seriously the situation and life of the Church;

    4) a) When Archbishop said he could not get along with Benedict XVI (then Cardinal) and b) Bishop Fellay getting along quite well with Benedict XVI;

    5) a) When the Archbishop said that we should not put ourselves under the authority of those who do not profess the integrity of the Faith b) Bishop Fellay said that not want to put ourselves under the authority of Pope Benedict XVI (who does not profess the integrity of the Faith ) is to have schismatic and sedevacantist spirit;

    6) a) What Archbishop said about a conspiracy of Freemasonry against Holy Church, in which she was infiltrated by this sect to the highest levels of the hierarchy even in Rome and b) that Bishop Fellay does not believe or does not take seriously enough these conjurations, saying that it is a too human vision of the Church, too fatalistic; seeing only the dangers, difficulties and conspiracies;

    7) a) That Archbishop Lefebvre made a public manifest repudiating the ecumenical meeting in Assisi, a grave sin of the Pope against the first commandment of God and b) that Bishop Fellay did not do the same when the current Pope repeated this sin in "Assisi III"[1];

    8) a) That Archbishop has said that religious freedom sponsored by Vatican II is the height of impiety, equivalent to the principle of the state's secularism, considering the atheistic state and not taking into account the difference between truth and error and b) that Bishop Fellay has said that Vatican II presents a very limited religious liberty;

    9) a) That Archbishop has said that the documents of Vatican II are a total perversion of the spirit and that this council was the biggest disaster of all centuries since its foundation and b) that Bishop Fellay has said that Society of St. Pius X was exaggerating Vatican II's heresies;

    10) a) What Archbishop Lefebvre, in view of his experience and contacts with members of the Vatican, took from 1988 a more uncompromising position in regards a possible canonical recognition of the Society and b) that Bishop Fellay quoting Archbishop Lefebvre has been silencing this last position of his, implying that the thoughts of Archbishop Lefebvre has always been on his pronouncements before 1988.


    WE JUDGE


    That the way of speaking and acting of Bishop Fellay is a betrayal of the doctrinal legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre in regards the attitude to take on the current crisis in the Holy Church, and a refusal to recognize, accept and assimilate the experience of Archbishop Lefebvre in his contacts with Rome.


    ON THE OTHER HAND


    Some will say that Bishop Fellay recanted saying he has been deceived.


    WE ANSWER


    Bishop Fellay was not very clear on what he was wrong and his attitude toward those who were not deceived nor deceived him makes us think he keeps essentially the same positions as before.



    II) A SPIRIT THAT IS NOT GOD


    CONSIDERING


    1) What has been noted in more than one occasion (as we have said in response to the objection the topic above) Bishop Fellay has spoken and acted in a contradictory manner to accomplish his purposes;


    2) That this way of behaving with duplicity does forfeit the due credit of those who behaves likewise.



    WE JUDGE


    1) That the spirit animating Bishop Fellay is not the spirit of God, therefore we can and should judge before putting our trust and our salvation (in a certain way) in the hands of someone;


    2) That he is unworthy of this confidence we normally would have for him as the highest authority within the Tradition.


    III) THE MASTER BLOW OF SATAN


    CONSIDERING


    a) That Archbishop has said the masterstroke of Satan was to cast all Catholics in disobedience (towards the Church, Tradition and, ultimately, to Our Lord) through obedience (to the Conciliar Popes) and b) that Bishop Fellay is conducting all those associated with the SSPX to disobey Archbishop Lefebvre (and, ultimately, the Holy Church, Tradition and Our Lord) by obedience to himself.


    WE JUDGE


    We must resist and, moreover, publicly denounce his doctrinal deviations in order that people do not continue to be deceived, following the false path by which he is leading the Society: a spirit of sympathy towards the present Pope; of decreased aversion of Vatican II; of desiring to join the "Conciliar Church", identifying it with the Holy Catholic Church; the decrease in fighting the progressivists.


    IV) REBELLION? NO. JUST RESISTANCE? YES!


    CONSIDERING


    1) That the members of the SSPX who publicly oppose the new orientation and doctrines of Bishop Fellay are being expelled from the Society for this very reason;


    2) This being the cause, the so called expulsion is unfair because the attitude of these members are just;


    3) That being unfair, this expulsion is invalid;


    4) And being this expulsion invalid, by right and before God they remain true members of the Society of St. Pius X.


    WE JUDGE


    That these members of the SSPX should not be considered as rebels but on the contrary, as faithful children of Archbishop Lefebvre, who before the Conciliar Popes had the same attitude that they are now having towards Bishop Fellay.


    V} THE ACTUAL AND VERY GRAVE SITUATION OF HOLY CHURCH


    CONSIDERING


    1) That lately on the doctrinal talks, we witnessed the incompatibility of Church doctrine with the doctrine of the current holders of authority in Rome;


    2) That Benedict XVI renewed in 2011 the ecumenical meeting in Assisi;


    3) That Benedict XVI beatified Pope John Paul II;


    4) That Benedict XVI said in 2012 that any renewal of the Church should be based on the deepening of the documents of Vatican II;


    5) That Benedict XVI signed in 2012 the decree of "heroic virtues" (?) of Paul VI;


    6) That the Principality of Liechtenstein in late 2012 was in the process of ceasing to be an officially Catholic State due to the pressure from the doctrine of the Council on Religious Liberty;


    7) That the two signals in which Archbishop Lefebvre recognized he should consecrate bishops without the Pope's permission were an ecumenical meeting in Assisi and the reaffirmation of the errors of Vatican II on religious freedom by Rome.


    WE JUDGE


    That the current situation of the Church is very serious, similar (or worse) of that we found ourselves in 1988, contrary to what Bishop Fellay affirm.


    VI) A DRASTIC REMEDY FOR A DRASTIC EVIL



    CONSIDERING


    1) That those who remain in the SSPX are in tremendous need to choose between remaining silent or being expelled for opposing the current direction imposed by Bishop Fellay;


    2) That the work of Archbishop Lefebvre should not become extinct because of this new direction;


    3) That Bp. Williamson alone is unable to meet all the appeals of the priests and faithful throughout the world, to administer the sacraments and give them sound doctrine, as received from the Archbishop;


    4) That the same reasons that led the Archbishop to make the consecrations of 1988 exist today and therefore currently justify new episcopal consecrations for Tradition without permission of the Pope.


    WE JUDGE


    That is most convenient that Bp. Williamson proceeds in a timely fashion to these consecrations, for the good of the Church, waiting for better days, when things will normalize.


    It's up to him to set the most convenient time and to do it.


    Arsenius



    [1] Please note that these meetings have taken place regularly after 1986, almost every year in different places with the participation of members of the Conciliar Church.

    The Current Crisis
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3737
    • Reputation: +3625/-1044
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #38 on: February 10, 2013, 01:40:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • THE CURRENT CRISIS

    I) DOCTRINAL TREASON


    CONSIDERING


    1) a) What Archbishop has said about the greatest danger to traditionalists was to put themselves in the hands of modernist Rome and b) Bishop Fellay recently saying those who want the good of the Church want also the Society of St. Pius X to be officially recognized by modernist Rome (which is the same as being put in the modernist's hands);

    2) a) What Archbishop said about Rome preparing a trap by offering us every advantage we could desire to settle our situation and b) Bishop Fellay saying that to currently think this way is a lack of realism and supernatural spirit;

    3) a) What Archbishop said about Benedict XVI (then Cardinal still) looking to deschristianize the world and b) Bishop Fellay saying Pope Benedict XVI takes very seriously the situation and life of the Church;

    4) a) When Archbishop said he could not get along with Benedict XVI (then Cardinal) and b) Bishop Fellay getting along quite well with Benedict XVI;

    5) a) When the Archbishop said that we should not put ourselves under the authority of those who do not profess the integrity of the Faith b) Bishop Fellay said that not want to put ourselves under the authority of Pope Benedict XVI (who does not profess the integrity of the Faith ) is to have schismatic and sedevacantist spirit;

    6) a) What Archbishop said about a conspiracy of Freemasonry against Holy Church, in which she was infiltrated by this sect to the highest levels of the hierarchy even in Rome and b) that Bishop Fellay does not believe or does not take seriously enough these conjurations, saying that it is a too human vision of the Church, too fatalistic; seeing only the dangers, difficulties and conspiracies;

    7) a) That Archbishop Lefebvre made a public manifest repudiating the ecumenical meeting in Assisi, a grave sin of the Pope against the first commandment of God and b) that Bishop Fellay did not do the same when the current Pope repeated this sin in "Assisi III"[1];

    8) a) That Archbishop has said that religious freedom sponsored by Vatican II is the height of impiety, equivalent to the principle of the state's secularism, considering the atheistic state and not taking into account the difference between truth and error and b) that Bishop Fellay has said that Vatican II presents a very limited religious liberty;

    9) a) That Archbishop has said that the documents of Vatican II are a total perversion of the spirit and that this council was the biggest disaster of all centuries since its foundation and b) that Bishop Fellay has said that Society of St. Pius X was exaggerating Vatican II's heresies;

    10) a) What Archbishop Lefebvre, in view of his experience and contacts with members of the Vatican, took from 1988 a more uncompromising position in regards a possible canonical recognition of the Society and b) that Bishop Fellay quoting Archbishop Lefebvre has been silencing this last position of his, implying that the thoughts of Archbishop Lefebvre has always been on his pronouncements before 1988.


    WE JUDGE


    That the way of speaking and acting of Bishop Fellay is a betrayal of the doctrinal legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre in regards the attitude to take on the current crisis in the Holy Church, and a refusal to recognize, accept and assimilate the experience of Archbishop Lefebvre in his contacts with Rome.


    ON THE OTHER HAND


    Some will say that Bishop Fellay recanted saying he has been deceived.


    WE ANSWER


    Bishop Fellay was not very clear on what he was wrong and his attitude toward those who were not deceived nor deceived him makes us think he keeps essentially the same positions as before.



    II) A SPIRIT THAT IS NOT GOD


    CONSIDERING


    1) What has been noted in more than one occasion (as we have said in response to the objection the topic above) Bishop Fellay has spoken and acted in a contradictory manner to accomplish his purposes;


    2) That this way of behaving with duplicity does forfeit the due credit of those who behaves likewise.



    WE JUDGE


    1) That the spirit animating Bishop Fellay is not the spirit of God, therefore we can and should judge before putting our trust and our salvation (in a certain way) in the hands of someone;


    2) That he is unworthy of this confidence we normally would have for him as the highest authority within the Tradition.


    III) THE MASTER BLOW OF SATAN


    CONSIDERING


    a) That Archbishop has said the masterstroke of Satan was to cast all Catholics in disobedience (towards the Church, Tradition and, ultimately, to Our Lord) through obedience (to the Conciliar Popes) and b) that Bishop Fellay is conducting all those associated with the SSPX to disobey Archbishop Lefebvre (and, ultimately, the Holy Church, Tradition and Our Lord) by obedience to himself.


    WE JUDGE


    We must resist and, moreover, publicly denounce his doctrinal deviations in order that people do not continue to be deceived, following the false path by which he is leading the Society: a spirit of sympathy towards the present Pope; of decreased aversion of Vatican II; of desiring to join the "Conciliar Church", identifying it with the Holy Catholic Church; the decrease in fighting the progressivists.


    IV) REBELLION? NO. JUST RESISTANCE? YES!


    CONSIDERING


    1) That the members of the SSPX who publicly oppose the new orientation and doctrines of Bishop Fellay are being expelled from the Society for this very reason;


    2) This being the cause, the so called expulsion is unfair because the attitude of these members are just;


    3) That being unfair, this expulsion is invalid;


    4) And being this expulsion invalid, by right and before God they remain true members of the Society of St. Pius X.


    WE JUDGE


    That these members of the SSPX should not be considered as rebels but on the contrary, as faithful children of Archbishop Lefebvre, who before the Conciliar Popes had the same attitude that they are now having towards Bishop Fellay.


    V} THE ACTUAL AND VERY GRAVE SITUATION OF HOLY CHURCH


    CONSIDERING


    1) That lately on the doctrinal talks, we witnessed the incompatibility of Church doctrine with the doctrine of the current holders of authority in Rome;


    2) That Benedict XVI renewed in 2011 the ecumenical meeting in Assisi;


    3) That Benedict XVI beatified Pope John Paul II;


    4) That Benedict XVI said in 2012 that any renewal of the Church should be based on the deepening of the documents of Vatican II;


    5) That Benedict XVI signed in 2012 the decree of "heroic virtues" (?) of Paul VI;


    6) That the Principality of Liechtenstein in late 2012 was in the process of ceasing to be an officially Catholic State due to the pressure from the doctrine of the Council on Religious Liberty;


    7) That the two signals in which Archbishop Lefebvre recognized he should consecrate bishops without the Pope's permission were an ecumenical meeting in Assisi and the reaffirmation of the errors of Vatican II on religious freedom by Rome.


    WE JUDGE


    That the current situation of the Church is very serious, similar (or worse) of that we found ourselves in 1988, contrary to what Bishop Fellay affirm.


    VI) A DRASTIC REMEDY FOR A DRASTIC EVIL



    CONSIDERING


    1) That those who remain in the SSPX are in tremendous need to choose between remaining silent or being expelled for opposing the current direction imposed by Bishop Fellay;


    2) That the work of Archbishop Lefebvre should not become extinct because of this new direction;


    3) That Bp. Williamson alone is unable to meet all the appeals of the priests and faithful throughout the world, to administer the sacraments and give them sound doctrine, as received from the Archbishop;


    4) That the same reasons that led the Archbishop to make the consecrations of 1988 exist today and therefore currently justify new episcopal consecrations for Tradition without permission of the Pope.


    WE JUDGE


    That is most convenient that Bp. Williamson proceeds in a timely fashion to these consecrations, for the good of the Church, waiting for better days, when things will normalize.


    It's up to him to set the most convenient time and to do it.


    Arsenius



    [1] Please note that these meetings have taken place regularly after 1986, almost every year in different places with the participation of members of the Conciliar Church.

    The Current Crisis
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline MaterDominici

    • Owner's Wife
    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 4782
    • Reputation: +3582/-40
    • Gender: Female
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #39 on: February 11, 2013, 09:15:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In reference to the above post:
    Quote from: Chiara
    Arsenius is a monk of Holy Cross Benedictine Monastery in Brazil
    "If I could only make the faithful sing the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei ... that would be to me the finest triumph sacred music could have, for it is in really taking part in the liturgy that the faithful will preserve their devotion. I would take the Tantum ...

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3737
    • Reputation: +3625/-1044
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #40 on: February 16, 2013, 08:55:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Eleison Comments:
    Bishop Williamson Condemns Menzingen Treachery
    Contact Information for all Society Priests Given to Rome!



    DI NOIA, ANNOYER

    Two months ago the Vice-president of Rome’s Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei addressed to the Superior General of the Society of St Pius X and to all its priests a letter of several pages, accessible on the Internet, which Fr. Lombardi as spokesman for the Holy See called a “personal appeal”. The letter has been raising comments ever since. It is clearly the latest move in Rome’s campaign to bring the SSPX to heel, and put an end to its 40-year resistance to the Conciliar Revolution. As Bishop de Galarreta said in October of 2011, even if the SSPX turns down Rome’s offers, still Rome will keep coming back. Sure enough. But let us see briefly what Archbishop Di Noia has to say to “Your Excellency and dear Priestly Brothers of the Society of St Pius X”:--

    He begins by admonishing Society leaders, notably Fr Schmidberger, Fr Pfluger and Bishop Fellay (in that order) for giving interviews so critical of Rome as to call in question whether the SSPX really wants reconciliation with Rome. Moreover, doctrinal differences are as intractable as ever between the SSPX and Rome. So he calls for a new approach, focusing on unity instead.

    Church unity is hindered by four vices and promoted by the four opposing virtues of humility, mildness, patience and charity. Dividers of the Church are enemies of God. All we need is love. Away then with “harsh and unproductive rhetoric”. Let the SSPX fulfil its charism of forming priests, but priests who will be docile to the official Magisterium, who will preach the Faith and not polemics, and who will treat theological problems not in front of untrained layfolk but with the competent authorities in Rome. The Pope is the supreme judge of such difficult questions. In conclusion, Benedict XVI does want reconciliation. Bitterness must be healed. In Our Lord’s words, “Let them be one.” (End of the Archbishop’s letter.)

    Notice in passing how, typically for modern man and for modernists, the Archbishop brackets out the essential question of doctrine, but this letter’s main interest lies elsewhere : how could the Archbishop have dared to address it to all SSPX priests without prior collusion with SSPX HQ ? It served him by forwarding the letter to all SSPX priests ! Here is one indication amongst many others that there are contacts between Rome and SSPX HQ that are kept from public view. But the question then arises, what motive can SSPX HQ have had to give to the modernist Archbishop such privileged and dangerous access to all SSPX priests ? Does it want them to become modernists also ? Surely not ! But it may well want to help Rome towards “reconciliation”.

    By transmitting the Archbishop’s loving appeal, SSPX HQ gets the sweet message through to all SSPX priests without anybody being able to accuse HQ itself of going soft. On the contrary, the Roman letter makes them all see how nice the Romans are. True, there is a gentle rebuke to the SSPX leaders for not being nice, but that will serve to show how these are standing firm in defence of the Faith ! Above all, the letter will have served as a trial balloon, to test the priests’ reactions. What are they thinking ? Both Rome and Menzingen need to calculate at what point to go ahead with a “reconciliation” such as will carry with it a large majority of the priests, and not alienate so many that organized resistance to the New World Order religion will continue.

    Dear SSPX priests, if you do not want to be swallowed alive by New Order Rome, I gently advise you to react. Let your Superiors know, as discretely as you like but in no uncertain terms, that you want nothing, but nothing, to do with Conciliar Rome, until it clearly abandons the Council.

    Kyrie eleison.

    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3737
    • Reputation: +3625/-1044
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #41 on: February 28, 2013, 07:57:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Letter of 37 Priests of the French District
    Biggest bombshell since the "Letter of the Three Bishops"
    Translated by new Cathinfo member "Vincent" on 2-28-13


    Here is my translation : I think English-speaking people might well understand it. English is not my mother tong, but French. The SSPX might be at the eve of the biggest earthquake of its history. Funny that this letter is written just when Pope Benedict XVI resigns. The Providence is watching on us and "everything is grace", even when everything seems lost. Regards.

    To Bishop Bernard Fellay

    Your Excellency,

    As you wrote it recently: "the links which unite us are essentially supernatural". However, you rightly reminded us that the requirements of nature must nevertheless not be forgotten. "Grace does not destroy nature". Among these requirements, there is truthfulness. Yet, these last months, we notice that a part of the problems with which we were confronted come from a grave negligence to this virtue (truthfulness).

    Ten years ago, as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, you said:
    "Never shall I agree to say: "in the Council, if we interpret it well, if we make it match with Tradition, we could find an acceptable sense." Never shall I agree to say that. That would be a lie; it is not allowed to tell a lie, even if it was a question of saving the Church." (Gastines, September 16th, 2012).

    But since then, you changed:
    "The whole Tradition of the catholic faith has to be the criterion and the guide to understand the teachings of the Vatican II Council, which in its turn enlightens certain aspects of the life and the doctrine of the Church, implicitly present in her, not formulated yet. The assertions of the Vatican II Council and of the Papal Magistery relative to the relation between the Roman Catholic Church and the non-Catholic and Christian confessions must be understood in the light of the whole Tradition." (St-Joseph-des-Carmes, June 5th, 2012).

    At Brignoles, in May 2012, you spoke about this document which "suited Rome" but that "will need to be explained to us because there are statements which are so much on the ridge line that if you have an apprehension or following you put dark or pink glasses, you see them as this or that". Since then, you justified your position in the following way:

    "If we can accept to be “condemned" for our rejection of modernism (which is true), we cannot accept being so because we would subscribed to the sedevancantist theses (which is false); it is what led me to draft a "minimalist" text which took into account only one of both statements and which, therefore, could leave misunderstanding in the SSPX." (Corn Unum 102) "Obviously, when I wrote this text, I thought it was clear enough, that I did enough to avoid - how to say? - the ambiguities. But the facts are there; I am well obligated to see that this text had become a text which divided us, us in the Society. I naturally remove it." (Ecône September 7th, 2012).

    You are thus a misunderstood person who, by condescension, remove a very delicate text which narrow spirits were incapable to understand. This version of the facts is skillful but is it fair? Removing a document and retracting a doctrinal error are not formally the same things. Furthermore, to call the sedevancantist "theses" to justify this "minimalist" document which "suited Rome" seems very well out of place, when at the same time, and for more than thirteen years, you let a priest not quote the name of the pope in the canon, confiding him you understand his choice in front of the scandalous signature of a common document between Catholics and Protestants.

    Bishop Tissier de Mallerais confided a colleague that this "Letter of April 14th" should never be published because, according to him, you would be "definitively compromised and probably forced to the resignation." Which confirms Bishop Williamson's charitable warning: "for the glory of God, for the salvation of souls, for the peace of mind of the Society members and for your eternal salvation, you’d better resign than exclude me." (London, October 19th, 2012) Nevertheless, you took it for an open and public provocation.

    But when Bishop de Galarreta declared, on October 13th 2012 at Villepreux this incredible sentence we can hear but not read because La Porte Latine omitted the on-line transcription: "it is almost impossible that the majority of the Superiors of the Society - after frank discussion, complete analysis of all the aspects, all the ins and outs - it is unthinkable that this majority makes a mistake in a prudential material. And if by chance, it happens, too bad anyway,we are going to do what the majority thinks", in Menzingen, the General Secretary, Father Thouvenot, wrote that he "explained the events of June 2012 with recoil and rise".

    How was the Society able to fall so low? Archbishop Lefebvre himself wrote: "in the day of the judgment, God will ask us if we were faithful and not if we obeyed unfaithful authorities. The obedience is a virtue related to the Truth and to God. It is no longer a virtue but a vice if it submits itself to the error and to the evil." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter of August 9th, 1986), And Father Berto wrote in 1963: "we have to ‘see further than the end of our noses’, and not imagine that we believe in the Holy Spirit and follow him as far as we believe in the Council ".

    During the conference of November 9th, 2012 in Paris, a prior asked you: "at the end of the priestly retreat, two colleagues accused me of being in revolt against your authority because I showed some satisfaction about the text of Father de Cacqueray against Assisi III. What do you think?" Your answer was: "I ignored that there were such things in the Society. I did ask for this statement (of Father de Cacqueray). Moreover, it was published with my permission. I completely agree with Father de Cacqueray." Yet, during the sisters’ retreat at Ruffec, you confided six priests that you did not agree with the text of Father de Cacqueray. Moreover, you complained to him about the criticism that cardinal Levada, for 20mn, did to you about that subject. If you gave him the permission to publish it, it was, did you explain, not to look partial, but you personally disapproved of the contents which you considered excessive. Your Excellency, who does use "fundamentally subversive" means? Who is revolutionary? Who does harm the common good of our society?

    On November 9th, 2012 in Paris, we heard a colleague ask you: "I am a member of those who lost confidence! How many lines of conduct are there in the Society now …" You answered: "it is a grave wound. We underwent serious hardships. It will take time." In front of this elusive answer, another prior asked you then: "Do you reject your answer to the three bishops…" Your answer was still vague: "yes, when I read it again, it seems to me that there are some small errors. But in fact to help you to understand, you have to know that this letter is not an answer to their mail, but to difficulties which I had with each of them separately. I have a lot of respect for Bishop Williamson, even admiration for him, he has genius knocks in the combat against Vatican II, it is a big loss for the Society and it is happening at the worst moment…" But who is responsible for the exclusion? In private, you say many things: "I was at war","Rome lies ", but you have never released the slightest official statement to denounce these claimed lies. Recently, about the ultimatum of February 22nd, you supported the lie of the Vatican.

    Your language has become endlessly vague. This ambiguous way of expressing oneself is not praiseworthy as Father Calmel wrote: "I always loathed the soft or elusive expressions, which can be pulled in all directions, which each one is capable of having meant what he wants. And those expressions are in horror to me, as they cover themselves with ecclesiastical authorities. These expressions appear to me a direct insult to the one who said: "I am the Truth … You are the light of the world. Let your word be yes if it is yes, no if it is not … "

    Lord, you and your Assistants were capable of saying everything and its opposite without fear of the ridicule.

    Father Nély, in April 2012 in Toulouse, declared to several priests that "if the doctrinal relations with Rome failed, it is because our theologians were too pushy" but he said to one of these theologians:" you would have been able to be more incisive."

    Yourself, on November 9th, 2012, you asserted us: "I am going to make you laugh, but I really think that us, four bishops, share the same opinions." Whereas six months before, you wrote them: "about the crucial question of the possibility of surviving in the conditions of a recognition of the Society by Rome, we do not arrive at the same conclusion as you."

    In the same retreat conference at Ecône, you declared: "I don’t think that I did not to go against the chapter of 2006 by doing what I did." A short moment after this statement, about the Chapter of 2012: "if it is the Chapter which sets the rules, it is this law which is valid until the next Chapter." When we know that in March 2012, without waiting for the next Chapter, you destroyed the law of that of 2006 (“no practical agreement without doctrinal solution”), we wonder about the sincerity of the comment.

    In Villepreux, one of your brothers in the episcopate invited us "not to dramatize. The tragedy would be to to give up the Faith. One should not ask for a perfection which is not of this world. You should not quibble over these questions. It is necessary to see if the essentials are there or not. "

    It is true, you did not become Mohammedan (1st commandment), you did not take woman (6th commandment), you simply maneuvered the reality (8th commandment). But are the essentials always here when the ambiguities touch the combat of the faith? Nobody asks you for a perfection which is not of this world. We can well conceive that we make a mistake in front of the mystery of iniquity, because even the chosen ones of God could be deceived, but nobody can accept a double language. Certainly, the big denial, predicted by the Holy Writings, can only disturb us. Who can claim to be unhurt from the traps of the devil? But why deceive us? To every sin mercy, of course. But where are the acts which show the conscience, the regret and the repair of the errors?

    You said in front of the priors of France: "I am tired of those quarrels of words". Maybe there lies the problem. Who does prevent you from going to rest at Montgardin and enjoy the joys of hidden life there? Rome always used a clear language. Mgr. Lefebvre too. You too in the past. But today, you maintain a confusion by identifying illegally "the Roman Catholic Church, eternal Rome"and"the official Church, modernist and conciliar Rome". Yet, on no account, you can’t change the nature of our combat. If you do not want to fulfill this mission anymore, you have to, as well as your assistants, give up the responsibility that the Society entrusted you with.

    Well, Father Pfluger says he personally suffers from the canonical irregularity of the Society. He confided a colleague in June 2012 "to have been shaken by the doctrinal discussions". At the end of his conference at Saint Joseph des Carmes, he said in a contemptuous way to whom wanted to hear him: "amazing that there is still some people who do not understand it is necessary to sign!". On April 29th 2012 in Hattersheim, after admitting that "the past events proved that the differences concerning the doctrinal questions cannot be filled", he said that he feared "new excommunications". But how can we be afraid of the excommunication of modernists already excommunicated by the Church?

    At Suresnes, Father Nély, on the occasion of a meal for the benefactors announcing that " the Pope had put an end to the relationship with the Society by asking for the recognition of the Mass and the Vatican II Council" added that "Bishop Felay was on his small cloud, it was impossible to make him get it down again". But did Father Nély not sign the monstrous letter to three bishops too? Was he not "on its small cloud" too when, in Fanjeaux, he declared to the Mother Superior, worried about an ultimatum of Rome: "no, feel reassured, everything goes well with Rome, their canonists help us to prepare the statutes of the prelacy … "

    Can you say, in conscience that you and your assistants assumed your responsibilities? After so many contradictory and harmful comments, how can you be able to claim? Who did harm the authority of the General Superior, yourself and your Assistants? How can you claim to speak about justice after hurting it? "What truth can go out of the mouth of the liar?" (Eccli. 34, 4). Who did sow ill-feeling? Who was subversive by lying? Who did scandalize priests and faithful? Who did mutilate the Society by decreasing its episcopal strength? What can well be a charity without the honor and justice?

    We know that we shall be blamed for not respecting the forms by writing you so publicly. Our answer will then be the one of Father de Foucauld to General Laperrine: "I had believed by entering the religious life that I would have to recommend the sweetness and the humility; in time, I believe that what is mostly lacking, it is Often the dignity and pride." (Letter of December 6th 1915). And what's the use to write you in private when we know that a brave and lucid priest had to wait four years to have a reply from you and it was not to read responses but insults. When a District Superior is still waiting for the acknowledgement of receipt of its letter of seventeen pages sent to the General House, it seems that Menzingen does not have other argument than the voluntarism anymore: "sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas ".

    Your Excellency, what we go through the moment is obnoxious. The evangelic righteousness has been lost: the Est est, non, non. The Chapter of 2012 did not clarify at all the situation. Father Faure, a chapter member, recently warned us publicly against "letters and statements of current superiors of the Society these last months"? Another one said to a colleague: "it is necessary to recognize that the Chapter failed. Today it is OK for a free Society in the conciliar Church. I was devastated by the level of reflection of some chapter members. "

    Your interventions and those of your Assistants are shady and let us believe that you operated only a simple strategic recoil.

    At the end of 2011, an assistant with a priest favorable to the agreement had tried to estimate the number of priests, in France, who would refuse an agreement with Rome. Their result: seven. Menzingen was reassured. In March 2012, you said that Mr. Guenois of Le Figaro was a very well informed journalist and that his vision of things was fair. Yet, Mr. Guenois wrote: "whether we want it or not, the pope and Bishop Fellay don’t want a doctrinal but ecclesial agreement ". In May 2012, you told the Superiors of the Benedictines, Dominicans and capuchins: "we know that there will be some breakage, but we will continue till the end". In June the ecclesial agreement was impossible. Nevertheless, in October, 2012, in the priory of Brussels, diocesan priests invited by Father Wailliez showed you their wish to see an agreement between Rome and the Society. You reassured them by these words: "yes, yes, that is going to be soon made"? It was three months after the chapter of July.

    Your Excellency, you have the duty in justice to tell the truth, to repair the lies and to retract the errors. Do it and everything will be back to normal again. You know how André Avellin, in the XVIth century, became a big saint having been ashamed of a lie which he had committed out of weakness. We simply want that you become a big saint.

    Your Excellency, we do not want you to be the man that deformed and mutilated the Priestly Society of Saint Pius the X.

    Be assured, Your Excellency, of our total loyalty to Archbishop Lefebvre's work,

    February 28th 2013
    37 priests of the SSPX
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18074
    • Reputation: +8204/-625
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #42 on: March 01, 2013, 09:14:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • www.inthissignyoushallconquer.com
    Donations:  Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church
    1730 N. Stillwell Road, Boston, KY 40107 USA


    Sermon given on Second Sunday after Epiphany
    Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, SSPX

    January 20th, A.D. 2013
    From Mass in Denver, CO
    Errors of ‘Science’
    (sermon prepared for Septuagesima Sunday, delivered a week early)

    Duration 52:32


    [The first few minutes of announcements are not transcribed here, min = 7:35 -- THEREFORE, sermon duration = 44:57]

    Fr. Pfeiffer:  In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.

    Today is the Second Sunday after Epiphany, but when I was looking at my map and my calendar yesterday, I misjudged the weeks and prepared for Septuagesima, which is next Sunday.  So today, a few considerations rather than today’s Sunday, Septuagesima, which is next Sunday, which in the early days of the Church, used to be considered the first Sunday of the Liturgical Year.  It was only about 800 years ago, that Septuagesima Sunday was just another season.  Now it’s a mysterious season thrown in as a filler, between Epiphany and Lent.  But that’s not what it originally was;  it was the first day of the year, and the beginning of everything in our liturgical life.  And the reason that is, is that the center of all of our life is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  That is the CENTER of HISTORY.  

    Everything is Before Christ and After Christ, with Christ or against Christ;  everything is centered on the decisions we make in regards to Christ crucified.  We either have the blood of the Lamb washed upon us for our redemption or we reject the Blood of the Lamb, and we are going to be counted amongst the damned if we do that.  

    But nonetheless, the good and bad, true and false, before and after, up and down, everything, is centered around Jesus Christ and His crucifixion.  Therefore the beginning of the year is when we begin to prepare for that crucifixion..  And that special time of preparation is Septuagesima Sunday, and it also symbolizes the whole of the history of the world, the sacredness of numbers:  seventy weeks of years was what Daniel spoke of, seventy DAYS between Septuagesima Sunday and the Saturday after Easter Sunday.  If you count the number of days after Septuagesima, 70 days will take you to the Saturday before Low Sunday.  And during that time, the whole of Redemption will be considered – the whole of it – our “deviation” is what it’s called by the Apostles of the Church, that when God created man, He created him good, but then there was the time of the “deviation,” when the first thing that man did was walk away from God.  He deviated:  went away from God.  

    And then God came down to the earth to bring man back to Himself!  To bring man back to heaven;  and this is the story of the history of the world.  And it is symbolized by the number 70, and also the number 7.  And these numbers are sacred.  And they tell us the history of our life, the history of our world, the history of everything, and of the supernatural life as well.  

    When we begin our Septuagesima Sunday, our Sacred Scripture reading, we haven’t changed that when the liturgical year moved Sunday of Advent considered the new beginning of the liturgical year, they didn’t change the Breviary readings, so on Septuagesima Sunday – next Sunday, not today – when we read:  “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and He said, ‘Let there be light’.”   And on Septuagesima Sunday we read the story of God’s creation of the six days.  And this is the beginning of everything.  And all of our supernatural life, all of the history of the world, all the history of our own lives, the history of everything, the history of salvation, is patterned on the 6 days of creation.  They are extremely important.  

    St. Thomas Aquinas tells us, ‘We could not know, it is not naturally possible for man to know how God created the world’ – we can measure the world after it was created, but we cannot know the order, or the details of how He created it.  It requires a special act of divine revelation.  And God revealed to Moses, and God revealed to Adam, and God revealed to us how He created the world, and the order in which He created it;  and there is a divine reason for everything that He created:  IN SIX LITERAL DAYS.  

    God did create the world in six days.  Evening and morning was the first day, was the second day, was the third day, was the fourth day, was the fifth day and the sixth day, and they were twenty-four hour days.  And on the seventh day He rested from His work, and He laid the pattern of our lives, a pattern which has never been changed.  

    If you look at the life of Jesus Christ and all of the things that He did to bring us to heaven, He gave us seven sacraments, which match these seven days – and the 7 ages of the Church, and the 7 letters of the 7 Churches and the 7 ages of the Church that St. John speaks about, that summarize the whole history of the world.  And there are 7 virtues: the three theological virtues and the four cardinal.  7 Gifts of the Holy Ghost – all of these things are important.  And they all fit together.  And even the devil came up with 7 capital sins.  

    Seven is really essential to our lives, and God created the world in 6 literal days, and on the seventh day He rested, and it’s important, and He revealed to us how He did it.  St. Thomas says the first 3 days are the days of the placing of the essential elements, and then on the final 3 days was the ornamentation, the decoration of those elements, light and the space was created on the first day, and on the 4th day the stars filled the spaces.  And on the second day, the separation of the waters.  And on the 5th day, we find the creation of fishes and birds to be inside of the waters and inside of the air.  And on the third day the dry land appears, and on the 6th day He creates all the various animals.  He created and then He ornamented.  

    And this is what He does in our spiritual life as well.  And the Fathers of the Church relate our spiritual life, they relate the history of the world, they relate the history of the Catholic Church to these days of creation.  And the devil knows it.  And that is why the devil tried to destroy it.  

    The devil attacked us at our roots.  Look at Genesis, and these 6 days.  It was very important that he do this.  And one of the key elements in the destruction of the Catholic Faith, is in the last 400 years today we will consider one wicked man, who we are not supposed to talk about because we will be mocked if we do.  

    His name is Galileo Galilei.  And Galileo lived 400 years ago.  And GALILEO WAS THE KEY TO THE MODERN DESTRUCTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

    Galileo was the key victor – the first man to understood the technique to destroy the Catholic Church, by creating a side church, by creating a false church, which would be the church of science – a false church which would replace the true Church.  And he saw the great way of doing it.  The key to doing it.  He was the one that was the father of the scientific revolution.  There were other revolutionaries before him, like Copernicus, and others before him, but they were not successful.  They failed.  Galileo recognized the two key weapons to destroy the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith, and he recognized the power of science:  How was science going to defeat the Church?  How was science going to defeat God? —by two main weapons, and he recognized their power.

    The first was the telescope.  Galileo had a telescope.  And he realized:  you know, there are very few men in the world that have telescopes.  And all I have to do, is say, “I have a telescope, and I am a scientist, and I see the waves of the ocean going back and forth, and therefore the earth must be spinning around.  And I have a telescope, and I can see the stars, and when I look into this telescope, I can see the movement of the stars and I can see that the sun is in the center of the universe and we are spinning around.  You can’t see it because you don’t have a telescope.  And if I gave you my telescope, you couldn’t see it either, because you’re not trained in how to look through a telescope.  

    So Galileo realized the true power of modern science:  pride.  The true power of modern science is:  I have a telescope, you don’t.  I know how to look through telescopes, you don’t.  And therefore, I will tell you what I see.  

    One man that did this in religion, and you can see exactly the case, was Joseph Smith.  Joseph Smith had a pair of glasses.  And Joseph Smith sat in front of a curtain, and he looked through his glasses and he said, ah, write down this – and the idiot on the other side of the curtain had to write down whatever Joseph Smith said.  And he said, “The angel’s telling me these things.”  And he was not allowed to look around the curtain, and see that he was just reading out of the Bible, and quoting it.  He was just reading out of other books and just quoting it.  And the editions that he wrote were just bad editions with lots of typos which were transferred into the Book of Mormon, the same typos.  And so the idiot didn’t know that, because he wasn’t allowed to look [tape skips – ‘behind the curtain’].  

    Galileo was the first one to realize the power of telescopes.  The power of the telescope is:  you don’t have one;  I do.  You don’t have a degree;  I do.  Therefore, I can make up anything I want, and I can say it’s science, and you will have to follow me.  You will have to agree.  I can only -- I can say ‘science has proven.’  For instance, one day in the life of Galileo, a man said, “It is impossible” – a scientist and an astronomer – “It is impossible for there to be the earth spinning and going around the sun, because if it did, there would be phases in Venus.”  And he said, “Ah:  that’s right.”  So he went, and he looked at the phases of Venus and he said, “I saw phases in Venus.”  Turns out there are phases in Venus, and there’s an explanation for it.  But he couldn’t see them through his telescope.  His telescope was not able to see the phases of Venus.  He just lied.  

    He said, “Ah!  I saw it!”  And he wrote it down.  He did never see the phases of Venus because you can’t see it with his telescope.  He just lied!  And he realized, if you tell a lie boldly, and you act like it’s true, and you say you’re an expert, people will believe you.  

    And then Galileo said, that the Scriptures are spiritual books.  He was the first one to say that.  They used to be historical books.  They used to be inerrant and infallible books.  But he said, no, they’re just ‘spiritual books’.  Now, many Protestants also deny the truth of Sacred Scripture.  We now think of Protestants as the ones who BELIEVE in Sacred Scripture, in fact, many of the Protestant heretics said, ‘It’s only a spiritual book also,’ so in this sense, he was a Catholic imitating the Protestants;  Galileo was a Catholic.  And he said, ‘No, they’re just spiritual books – and God’s trying to teach spirituality in these books – He’s not trying to teach science, and so when the Bible says things that touch science, don’t believe it’.  And he began to make the first separation, which was the first infiltration of the Catholic Church 400 years ago:  rip apart science and God – science and religion.  This is essential to the destruction of the Catholic Faith.  

    Because St. Thomas Aquinas tells us:  “Do not believe that Jesus is God, just because He says He’s God.  And that God Himself says, ‘Do not believe’.”  Remember the story of the northern prophet and the southern prophet?  You read it in the Book of Kings.  You read about the northern prophet and the southern prophet.  And the southern prophet was told by God, ‘Go to the king, and tell him he has offended God, and then, on your way to the king, do not speak to anyone, and do not eat.  And come back fasting to the land of the south’.  And he went – he told the king.  And on his way back, the northern prophet came and intercepted him.  And he said, ‘I too am a prophet.  I am the northern prophet’.  

    Their names are not given in the Book of Kings, they’re just the northern prophet and the southern prophet.  And he says, ‘I have been sent by God to give you food, because you are fasting, and He feels for you and tells you to eat’.  And so he said, ‘Oh, thank you’, and so he ate.  And when he had finished eating, the northern prophet said, ‘Why did you eat?  God told you, “Go to the king, and tell him he was to be punished.”   And He told you to leave, and He told you not to speak to anyone, but you spoke to me.  He told you not to eat, and you ate.  Why did you eat?  Behold you will be killed this day because of your sin’.  And lions came and ate, and killed the southern prophet.

    The northern prophet was sent to test the southern prophet.  And the southern prophet failed the test.  And so, the Fathers tell us, that we must test the spirits.  And we do not believe that when Christ says He’s God, that He’s God – we want proof.  And what is the proof?  He rose from the dead.  Jesus Christ really died before thousands and thousands of witnesses, who was seen with our own eyes.  He did die on the cross, he was buried;  one hundred soldiers guarded his tomb;  and He rose from the dead on the third day and a seven-year old child should know that.  

    How do we know that Jesus is God?  Because He rose from the dead! – with many witnesses of his death – many witnesses of his burial – many witnesses of his rising again.  Therefore, we must believe what He says, when He says He is God.   And there have been many miracles of the Church down the last 2,000 years.  Not only then, but even in the 20th century the miracle of the sun.  There are still continued miracles proving to rational men that God is still working amongst men, and has control of the operations of men.  

    St. Thomas says, ‘You do not believe what Christ says just because He said it, we must have motives of credibility.  We must have proof.’  And the proof is the miracles of Christ’s life, the evidence of those twelve Apostles, who’s proved the truth of those evidences as dying as witnesses to the truth of what they saw and of course the resurrection.  

    What happens with Galileo?  Galileo is essential.  Many have noticed that, many modern scholars have said, he created the greatest revolution in thought in the history of the world.  Why?  Because if you walk outside, this morning, if you did that, now-a-days people don’t go outside, but supposing you theoretically did that – if you go out tomorrow morning and you look to the east, you will see the sun rise.  And if you look in the evening you will see the sun set in the west.  You will watch the sun go through the sky, and you’ll watch it set.  Every day you’ll see it rise in the east, and every day you’ll see it set in the west.  And your eyes tell you that the sun is moving.  

    What was the power of the wickedness of Galileo?  Your eyes no longer tell you the truth.  The senses are no longer infallible.  St. Thomas tells us the common sense is infallible.  If you stand out in the rain and you feel the rain coming down, and you watch the rain, and you know what?  ‘It’s rainin’.   And you’re right:  it’s raining.  

    Now, from this sense, we can get certitude, from this certitude, we can learn about miracles, and the presence of God.  From this certitude, we can rise to the knowledge that there is a God.  From this certitude we can rise to the knowledge that there is a just judge, who will judge the good and the wicked, and give them their rewards.  But our certitude begins with our eyes.   [tape skips] Eyewitnesses – their certitude begins with our senses.  We see, we hear, we smell, we taste, we touch;  and what we see, we hear, we smell, we taste, we touch is real.  Galileo tells us, “No.”  Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.  He ripped out the foundation of all certitude.  And when you rip out the foundation of all certitude, you rip out the foundation of truth.  And when you rip out the foundation of truth, you rip out truth.  What is truth?  Truth is no longer from the outside.  And so, enter, in the next couple of hundred years:  SUBJECTIVISM.  

    Enter, after Galileo, since there is no OBJECTIVE TRUTH, if I can’t even tell the sun is moving, and if I’m moving at 133,000 miles per hour and I look like I’m standing still, and that’s the way it’s really going on;  and I don’t know – I can’t see it, but I know it’s true, it means my senses cannot be trusted—and therefore, what do I trust? – the scientists!  It’s a DOGMA.  It is a dogma outside of which there is no salvation!  You must believe that the earth is spinning – or you are a heretic!  You must believe that the sun is stationary in the middle of this universe or you are a heretic!  You are a FOOL and a HERETIC – it is a MOST IMPORTANT DOGMA!  

    One of the proofs that it’s so important, is why it continues and continues to come up and come up and come up – Galileo died 400 years ago!  What do we care about that idiot?  But you find things in the newspapers;  you find things in the History Channel;  you find things on the PBS;  you find you have to learn about it, everybody has to be handed their little globe that’s spinning around on an axis.  You have to believe it – it’s essential dogma, and if you don’t believe it:  there’s no truth!  It is the most important dogma of science.

    The other dogma is the spiritual dogma.  And that is the dogma of the ‘Holocaust.’  The dogma that there were 6 million Jews that were killed in the ‘Holocaust’.  This is the spiritual dogma.  And then the dogma of science is, there is, that we are spinning around in the universe, around a sun, and we are not at the center of the universe.  God did not become man in the center of the universe.  This is not the case.  And so, we must believe it.  

    And what is the consequence of it?  It takes time for it to rip apart the minds of men, because we human beings are slow.  It takes hundreds of years before minds of men are so ripped apart that we don’t know anything.  We don’t know whether or not it’s real.. if you go out, and you see a man that gets shot in the street, you’ve got to go home and see if it’s on the evening news to see if it really happened!  And if it’s not on the news, it probably didn’t happen.  

    And so you don’t believe what you see.  We don’t know if what we see, whether it’s true or if it’s false.  Galileo ripped apart the mind, firstly by the power of the telescope.  Real scientists say what they really see, but modern scientists, what do they say?  They tell you you evolved from an ape!  They tell you you evolved over billions of years.  They tell you that you must see that the sun is the center, and that we’re spinning around.  

    But they DON’T tell you, that whenever we send satellites into space, they pretend like the earth isn’t moving—because if you don’t do that, the satellites won’t get where they’re supposed to go.  So if they’re going to send real satellites into the real space, you make the earth stationary in your calculations!  But in the classroom, you don’t tell the people that.  And so, what are they going to do?  

    They are telling us what to believe:  These scientists are PRIESTS.  They are modern, pagan priests, who are teaching another religion that is not the true religion.  They are preparing for the Antichrist, with a pseudo-science and a pseudo-religion – because, just like Jesus Christ had POWER, why did he have power? – because he really walked on the  water – because He performed real miracles – because He showed by His actions that He had the power over the waves, and He had the power to rise from the dead – He showed by His real power over true science.  

    Without science, there is no religion.  

    Jesus Christ defied the powers of death, when He said to that man that was dead 4 days in the tomb:  Lazarus, come forth!  And He rose up, and the stone was rolled back and he came out of the tomb.  Without science there is no miracle of the resurrection and of Lazarus.  Without science there’s no miracle of Christ’s resurrection.  Without science there’s no explanation for the death of those Egyptians who went with Pharaoh into the Red Sea.  Science is essential to our faith.  

    We cannot have a true faith or be certain of our faith, unless it is scientifically proven.  Like in the case of Padre Pio and one of his miracles:  a [girl] was born in England without pupils.  [She] didn’t have pupils.  [She] came to Padre Pio.  (It was a lady.)  He cured her, and she watches movies, and she reads the newspaper, and she doesn’t have pupils.  He didn’t give her pupils.  He didn’t give her the necessary elements to be able to see;  he just gave her the power to see.  And she drives a car, without eyes.  That’s science, God over science! – God doing something that cannot be denied by the scientists.  She sees:  she has no pupils.  Miracles depend upon science.  And the devil knows that.  So what did he do?  Destroy science!  Make it the tool of the devil!  Science was the great enemy of the devil before – now it’s the tool of the devil, because it is not real science, it is pseudo-science.

    Because when the Antichrist comes, he will need scientists – he will need experts:  “That was a real miracle!”  What he does is false miracles!  And you will believe it – why? – because you believe these idiot morons with PhD’s with stupid universities.  That’s why you will believe it.  And these morons, who don’t know anything, they are respected as Gods.  They are respected as popes.  They are respected as priests and bishops.  And they are the priests and bishops and popes of the CHURCH OF SATAN.  

    The battle is a supernatural battle.  It is not a natural battle.  The first weapon was the telescope, and the second weapon, human respect and mockery.  This is a very powerful weapon:  Human Respect and Mockery.  

    Galileo was an expert at mockery during his own life.  He used to mock anyone who did not agree with him, rather than giving an argument against his adversaries, he would make them look like fools, and he would mock them.  The bad scientists before him were trying to give reasons.  Galileo realized:  you don’t need to give reasons.  You need to act like you’re smart, you need to act like you know, you need to pretend you have the proof, and you need to lie with impunity, and you need to mock and curse anyone who’s against you and they will all bow down:  Popes and bishops included!  

    And that’s what happened.  Friends of Galileo became cardinals over the next couple of hundred years, friends of his ideas.  And they removed his books from the Index.  He was declared a heretic – or, his doctrine was declared a heresy in 1616, and then it was declared heresy in 1633.  And the word “heresy” was explicitly used by the popes, two different popes.   And what did they say?  For any Catholic to believe that the earth is not stationary and founded in its foundations like it says in the Book of Psalms, and like it says many times in Sacred Scripture, this is a heresy.  Because it is against the divine word of God, which is infallible and inerrant, and it is against the common teaching of the Fathers of the Church which, when they have preached the same thing and give the same interpretation it is also infallible and inerrant.  

    And if anyone says that the sun is not moving about the earth, that it is stationary, this is an error in philosophy, and it is insonorous to pious ears, and dangerous to the Faith.  Because, it is also against Sacred Scripture – it is also against the Fathers, but to a lesser degree.  And this is exactly what the popes said.  

    Many later, theologians said, ‘When the popes said it was heresy, they didn’t mean heresy like you and I mean heresy.  They didn’t mean error like you and I mean error.  They thought about it differently back then.  Just like when I mentioned earlier in the first sermon, when David went to Goliath and said ‘We’re not the best of buddies’ he didn’t mean it like we do now-a-days.  Well, you know what happened?  Goliath died, because they weren’t the best of buddies!  Because when David went to kill Goliath, Goliath died.  Because back then, they said the truth, and they put it into practice.  

    It’s the modern idiot that doesn’t know what the truth means.  It’s the modern fools who don’t know what it means.  Galileo was very important in the transformation of our thoughts.  

    And what happened?  Descartes comes, and others.  And they realize the problem.  If I cannot be certain that the sun is moving, and I can’t be certain of what I see, there must be certitude, but it doesn’t come from outside.  It doesn’t come from evidence anymore.  It doesn’t come from without, it doesn’t come from witnesses, it doesn’t come from external proofs.  So where does it come from?  It must come from within.  And therefore, Descartes said, Cogito ergo sum – I think, therefore I am.   A more intelligent man on Saturday Night Live said, “I can’t think, therefore I am not.”  

    But the fact is, that he said was looking for certitude somewhere, you can’t find it outside, so you’ve gotta find it within, and this is a very important preparation for the Antichrist.  Get man to search for truth within!  And no longer search for truth outside, because the trouble with the world is, the rocks, and the trees, and the sun and the moon and the stars and the animals, and all external things point to God.  That’s a big problem for the devil!  And so, he wants us to look into our own nothingness—what is nothing?  Nothing is the exact opposite of God!  

    Nothing is what happens when we turn away from God.  We are ripped away from He
    Who is everything, and we return to a kind of nothingness.  We will never fully return to nothingness, because God made us to live forever, and we will:  whether it be in heaven in glory, or in hell in pain, we [tape skips] God will not change His mind.  

    Galileo was very important.  And he put wicked ideas into the world.  And these ideas must be condemned and they WERE condemned by the Church.  And it’s interesting, in February of 1615, just before that, I think it was the first Sunday of Advent, 1614, in November or December of 1614, a Father Foscarini, a Franciscan priest, preached a famous sermon in Florence.  And in that sermon, he talked about Joshua making the sun stand still.  And he said, it says in the Book of Judges that Joshua made the sun to stand still.  But in fact, we know, by Galileo’s telescope, and we know by other modern scientists that Copernicus spoke the truth, when he said the sun was in the middle of the world, and not the earth, and therefore, the sun did not stand still.  When God performed the miracle of Joshua making the sun to stand still, which is in Judges chapter 10, it was indeed a miracle, said Fr. Foscarini, but it was not true that the sun stood still, it was the earth that stopped spinning.  And therefore the Scripture was incorrect.  It was correct in that there was a long day, but it was not correct in that the sun did not stop in its orbit.  

    Because Sacred Scripture does not mean to teach literal science, so said Fr. Foscarini.  In Sacred Scripture it’s telling us historical events, according to the ways and understanding of the times, and Aristotle and St. Thomas didn’t understand these things.  

    A Dominican wrote a letter to the holy office of the Inquisition, in February of 1615, speaking about this sermon, and the teachers who agreed with Fr. Foscarini.  And in that letter, he said these things:  These people say:  Words do not mean what they seem to mean.  

    For instance, “Joshua made the sun stand still,” doesn’t mean that.  Words do not mean what they seem to mean, and they trample upon Aristotle, and they trample upon St. Thomas Aquinas, and they trample upon the certitude of our knowledge, how the foundations of our faith, they attack the very foundations of the faith.  And if the Church allows this to go on, it will be the end of Christianity.  Such was the prophesy of a Dominican in February of 1615.  It has come true.

    Once certitude has been taken away from us – first Galileo, and the sun moving about, then later on comes Darwin – well, that’s before man was created – so then maybe man did evolve from an ape, and maybe the six days aren’t really six literal days.  And then, maybe those men didn’t drown in the Red Sea.  Maybe the Egyptians, you know, got tired and went home and maybe they tripped up because their armor was heavy and they couldn’t walk through the swamp, and the Jews could walk through the swamp because they didn’t have armor and chariots, and the Pharaoh couldn’t walk through the swamp.  Maybe that’s what happened!  

    And then, what about Jesus Christ?  Maybe He didn’t rise from the dead!  Maybe He didn’t perform all these miracles – maybe there’s a difference between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith!  How do we combat them?  Do we combat them by saying,
    “No! No! Galileo was right!  No, no, Darwin was right!  No, no, Scripture is not a book of science!  No!  BUT, Jesus Christ really, really died!”  You’re dead!  

    The word of God is the word of God, or it’s not.  The truth is the truth or it is not.  

    You cannot say, “I accept this part of the truth but I don’t accept the other part.”  We either accept the whole, or in the end we accept nothing.  The devil has ripped everything apart, and wisely so, over the last 400 years.  So that now, Catholic priests and Catholic bishops – what has happened?  Now, when many modern men, through modern science, have found God, like Doctor Henry Morris:  who believed in evolution, was trained in evolution, and was a geologist studying in the rocks.  And he was a nothing, an atheist.  And he was studying the rocks, and he discovered that the Rocky Mountains here in Colorado and the mountains and Himalayas in Asia, that they are formed by water!  There is sedimentary rock!  And they couldn’t be so high, and it couldn’t have been formed unless there was a global flood!  And so he wrote in his treatise that there must have been a global flood sometime in the past.  And then his professor said, ‘Ah! You’re a Scripture nut! You’re a Bible nut!  You believe in the Flood!’ – and he said:  ‘What flood?  What bible?’  He’d never read it before.  He never went to bible class.  And then he looked it up.  And he converted……to Protestantism, and not to Catholicism!

    Had the Catholic bishops, and the Catholic priests, and the Catholic intellectuals in the last 150 years not been cowards, who were terrified of the modern scientists, had they been brave and stood upon what they knew to be true, then Henry Morris would have become a Catholic and not a Protestant.  Then these men that are finding God through science would not be going to Protestantism, they would be coming to Catholicism.  Every day, there are new men that find God through science – every day.  When they see the beauty and order and structure that God created, they see the inter-harmony of all things, they see how all things must have been created at the same time in order for any of them to exist, and they come to God—but they do not come to the Catholic Church because the Catholics are not defending the truth!  

    And if we want to face the reality of the wickedness of modern teaching, we must go to the roots and go to the source and condemn it from the roots and condemn it from the source and we must stand in the truth.  The truth is, Galileo was a heretic.  And Galileo’s teaching caused damage to billions of souls.  And, it matters!  

    Our pattern of our supernatural life is built on the order that God made.  He created the world in 6 days, and on the seventh day He rested, and there are seven ages of the spiritual life, and they fit together.  He made our virtues;  He made our sacraments;  He made the structure of the Church;  He made the supernatural life—all fit the nature that He is the author of.  If we do not believe in the nature that He is the author of, and we don’t believe in the structure that He created, how can we supernaturalize that which we do not believe in?

    The devil is after our souls.  He is trying to destroy our souls, through modern science, modern false priests, modern ignorance, modern foolishness.  And the last example I mentioned in the earlier sermon, one big difference between the old Chinese and modern man:  When you hear amongst the Chinese about a Chinese emperor, and a tailor came to that emperor, and he started to sew new clothes for the emperor.  And they asked him what he was doing, and he said, ‘Well, what does it look like I’m doing – I’m sewing clothes.  And they said, ‘Oh!  They’re very beautiful!’   And finally, he decorated the emperor with his clothes.  And the emperor walked naked through the streets – and a little boy said, “He’s naked!”   When the little boy said, “he’s naked,” all the people said, “You’re right!  He’s naked!”  This is the difference between the Chinese then and the modern fools today.  

    Now the emperor of modern science walks through the streets with his stupidity of evolution, with his stupidity of saying we’re going back to the ‘big bang’ – that we’re looking back through time, we’re looking back 6 billion years – we can’t look back yesterday, but we’ll look back 6 billion years.  And we’re seeing the moment just before the ‘big bang’ – what an idiot!   And the foolishness of evolution – stupid!  Naked!  And then somebody says, “He’s naked!”  And, what happens this time?  “Oh!  You’ve got a dirty mind!”  And what do they say now?  “You’re crazy!”  Well then explain to me what the emperor’s new clothes look like!   “They’re so beautiful, they’re beyond description!”   What color is he wearing – can you explain to me?   “Oh!  They’re so much beautiful!  They’re so beautiful!  You don’t even understand.  You don’t even ‘get it’, man!”  

    Now, the people are so ignorant, that when the emperor is walking naked in the streets and the little boy says, “He’s naked!” they just simply beat up the boy.  And they crucify him.  And they put him in an insane asylum.  That’s the difference between now and then.  

    There’s several reasons for that.  One of them is, the modern scientist is the modern priest.  And according to that modern priest, you don’t need to go to confession.  There is no sin.  Homosexuality is normal.  That’s become ‘science’ – homosexuality has become ‘science’.  Abortion has become ‘science’.  Birth control has become ‘science’.  Living without God has become ‘science’.  And there’s another explanation for the universe than God, and this is ‘science’.  And open your Catholic eyes and your Catholic ears, and turn on a little bit of your Catholic brain, and speak to the people on the streets.  Ask them:  Why do you not believe in God?  “I don’t believe in God because of the discoveries of modern science!”  

    That’s what they say.  “I don’t believe in religion because I know about – we evolved from an ape.  I don’t believe in religion, I don’t believe in science, I don’t believe in the bible – I don’t believe in the bible because the bible doesn’t even know about how we’re spinning around in our universe.”

    What is the effect of this modern science?

    The denial of the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.  And also, it is a BLASPHEMY.  Why? Because Our Lord Jesus Christ said Himself:  Don’t believe me – believe my works!   And that’s God speaking.  If anyone has the right to say, believe me because I’m God, and I know more than you, and I said it, and therefore it’s true – if anyone has a right to say that, it’s God.  And He doesn’t say that.  

    But then we give that right to an idiot scientist – can you prove, scientifically, do you know all the proofs of why the sun is in the center and the earth is spinning around it in an elliptical orbit?  You should read Robert Sungenis’ thick book, Galileo Was Wrong.  

    Do you really know?  No, you don’t.  But you believe.  And you believe with FERVOR and faith, because you know science would not lie to you.  That man that doesn’t believe in God.  That man who worships satan.  That man who aborts his babies – he would never lie to me!  But God might.  This is a blasphemy against the First Commandment.  

    We take these modern, foolish scientists, and we give them the adoration, the unquestioning obedience, and the absolute acceptance of whatever they say, without any proof.  And yet, when we speak to people about Christ, they say, “Where’s the proof?!”

    He rose from the dead!  “Oh, I don’t know, I mean, people didn’t see back then like they do now-a-days.”   I know – they didn’t have video games back then.  They had EYES.  They didn’t have stupidity in their minds, they had BRAINS, they had thoughts, they had IDEAS.  Now, we’re fools.  Training fools to become more fools.  

    Galileo was a great, wicked man of the modern age, who changed thoughts, who was a real father of the modern revolution – of the scientific revolution – who recognized the real power of this revolution, which was, tell a lie, boldly, claim that the scientist and his tools know better than the poor, foolish people, and they’re above them, they have more secret knowledge that the others don’t have.  And resort to mockery when they don’t believe in you!  And this is sufficient to seduce modern man.  

    We must reject this foolishness.  And it matters for the salvation of souls.  It matters whether we’re going to be pleasing to God.  

    And lastly, prayer:  Why does God not hear our prayers?  If we look at the most sacred prayers of the Church, the Psalms are those prayers.  And in the Psalms, it speaks about the sun, as a bridegroom coming out from his chamber and running about the circuits of the skies.  And it speaks about those people dying in the Red Sea, Pharaoh’s soldiers being wiped out, and it speaks of the creation of the world, that God created according to the breath of his mouth and His speaking of His word.  And it speaks of how God controls science.  Like Psalm 103 tells us that God looks upon the hart;  He looks upon the deer as he’s running through the forest, and God turns His face away, and the deer dies.  

    Who determines the moment of the death of a tick?  Who determines the moment of the death of a dear, the death of a dog, the death of a rabbit?  God.  And we don’t believe it.  We read the prayers and we think they’re nice, but we don’t believe it’s TRUE.  And if we don’t believe the very prayers we say are true, why should God listen to us, who speak lies when we read His works?  

    There’s even a saying from the 19th century priests:  “He’s a liar:  like the second nocturne.”  You know, there are three nocturnes in the breviary.  The first nocturne is always a reading of the Sacred Scripture;  the third nocturne is always a sermon on the Gospel.  The second nocturne is usually the story of the saints, how they died, how they became martyrs and all their miracles.  And Catholic priests had a standard saying, that goes back 150 years – “He’s a liar like the second nocturne.”  They read it in their breviary every day – this is a mortal sin, if you don’t read that, you see!  And they read it every day in their breviary, but they don’t believe in the miracles!  They don’t believe in what it says in the Psalms!  And they wonder why they become corrupt, and they wonder why God does not listen.  

    Our prayers are connected to the truth of God’s view of science. Our prayers are connected to the truth of history.  Our prayers are connected to the truth of Sacred Scripture, and if we don’t believe the proof in our prayers, why should God listen to our prayers?  And this is a reason why – a reason why God does not listen to the most prayers of modern men.  

    It is most grave, the heresy of Galileo.  It is most grave, the heresy of Charles Darwin.  It is most grave heresy of the Modernists, who are simply the children – they’re just the children of Darwin and Galileo.  

    We must stand firm on the truth, from its origin—condemn the errors completely, and recognize the gravity of these two grave errors, stand firm upon Catholic truth, and then our prayers will have power again, and God will bring miracles again, back into the world.  

    I’ll close there, and may God bless you all, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.  

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21899
    • Reputation: +19218/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #43 on: March 01, 2013, 07:59:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Letter of 37 French priests to Bishop Fellay:
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3737
    • Reputation: +3625/-1044
    • Gender: Male
    Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
    « Reply #44 on: March 03, 2013, 11:42:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Declaration of Fr Arizaga (O.S.B - Silver City)
    Doctrine Over Obedience
    Copied/Pasted from "The Recusant"



    I declare that I am a servant of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Most Holy Virgin Mary of Guadalupe, and of the father of Our Lord, St. Joseph, and that I desire to live and die for love of Him. Moved by this attitude I am writing this public declaration in order to make clear the reasons for my actions, actions in which I do not believe I have been moved by rebellion or personal interest or anything else other than love of doctrine and charity.



    The motive for my actions has been the words of Garrigou Lagrange: 



    "The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not beleive; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."



    The Catholic principles which we have received from Abp. Lefebvre are the motor, the heart, the raison d'etre of the SSPX, the greatest treasure which we have inherited from him, and through which we have received the Catholic religion in all its force and integrity. Love of this doctrine has led me to trust in a special way the teaching of Bp. Williamson. His advice wisely guided me to continue in my beloved monastery of Silver City and foster a monastic life of fidelity, knowing that this is the best way of serving the Church in the sublime Benedictine vocation. Intolerance regarding principles necessarily moved me to lean on Bishop Williamson, while tolerance in charity led me to continue in my beloved monastery. Unfortunately, my superiors have decided that this way of living is not possible. On Sunday 24th February, the doors of my monastery were closed to me, to my great surprise. My crime? Following Bishop Williamson. I do not wish to attack my monastery, nor my spiritual father Dom Cyprian; they are not modernists; their intention is to give everything to God and to be holy, and their generosity is beyond question. The problem rather lies in a failure to grasp what the greatness of doctrine means: the priority of doctrine above everything else. Doctrine which is foud solidly grounded in Bp. Williamson, especially though not uniquely. This has been demonstrated by the fact that his teaching and his Eleison Comments have never ben refuted. This love of doctrine means that the condemnation of Bp. Williamson also falls upon me: I have been his friend and his son, that was my sin. My search for wisdom through spiritual direction, with no desire to leave my monastery, only to be confirmed in the faith and to continue my defense of the faith as a soldier of Jesus Christ ought, in order thus to better help the monastery, this was the cause of my expulsion.



    Charity requires me not to condemn either the SSPX or the monastery of Silver City, only God can judge, I forgive all the injustice perpatrated against me. At the same time, I beg forgiveness of all those whom I have offended, especially Dom. Cyprian, whom I shall never cease loving and for whom I continue to pray specially, hoping that Divine Providence reunites us again. I declare myself to be the enemy of nobody. I merely declare that I am intolerant of sin, and an enemy of liberal doctrine, sin against the First Commandment, since liberalism is a blasphemy in practice, which without doubt has infiltrated into various parts of the SSPX.



    In charity for my poor soul, please implore the infinite mercy of God, and to all of you, my brothers in the Faith, I appeal to your fraternal charity to pray a great deal for your poor servant. 



    With the help of God we will soon open a new monastery, and from now on I am asking for your help. We will receive all Catholics who are intolerant in doctrine but tolerant in charity.





    Yours forever in Our Holy Father St. Joseph,







    Fr. Raphael Arizaga, OSB



    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16