Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings  (Read 198208 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #40 on: February 16, 2013, 08:55:47 AM »
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 nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr 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.


Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2013, 07:57:44 PM »
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 docuмent 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 docuмent and retracting a doctrinal error are not formally the same things. Furthermore, to call the sedevancantist "theses" to justify this "minimalist" docuмent 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 docuмent 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


Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2013, 09:14:10 AM »
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 ‘h0Ɩ0cαųst.’  The dogma that there were 6 million Jews that were killed in the ‘h0Ɩ0cαųst’.  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.  ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is normal.  That’s become ‘science’ – ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity 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
Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2013, 07:59:19 PM »
Letter of 37 French priests to Bishop Fellay:

Collection of SSPX Resistance Writings
« Reply #44 on: March 03, 2013, 11:42:49 AM »
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