On the surface, it would seem that those who are regular attendees at SSPX
chapels would be wise to the danger of ignoring doctrine
per se, and giving
the lion's share of loyalty to 'obedience.'
It makes me a bit disappointed to hear them tout 'obedience' as if it is the last
word for fidelity and Catholicity. Have they forgotten what happened to the
Church at large in the abominable 1960's and the regrettable 1970's?
"There is now only one agreement, and that is that the SSPX
and Menzingen accept Vatican II as a valid Council with no errors
whatsoever, and that the new mass is totally valid. That is the only
agreement on the table right now. Therefore, I would presume
that every single SSPX-er is against that agreement.
Are you for that agreement?" I would keep a follow-up at hand:
Was Archbishop Lefebvre in favor of that kind of agreement,
or was he opposed to it on principle?It might pay to have some print-outs of the brochure in the Library sub-forum that
you can download:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Two-excellent-brochures-on-Archbishop-Lefebvre-Beyond-the-GraveThe brochures are attachments at the end of the first post.
Print them out, in color, two sided (front and back - it may mean you have to
turn your copy over and run it through a second time on printers that do only
one sided copies), then fold them, and see: a very nice brochure to give to
people who are willing to T-H-I-N-K. (Some, unfortunately, are unwilling to think.)
Here is a copy-and-paste of the content of the first brochure, but the PDF is far
more impressive, and PRACTICAL -- because it is in a brochure format, so you can
fold it in thirds, and it opens to read from the front cover to the inside, then on
to the back two thirds of the page.
A Bishop
Speaks
FROM
BEYOND
THE GRAVE
“...my words shall not pass away.” Luke 21:33
the archbishop’s words on the subject of
UNION WITH ROME
Part 1 of 2
THE MIND OF THE FOUNDER . . . (part 1)
Recently, there has been much talk and insistence upon
Bishop Fellay’s “grace of state” to conduct negotiations
with Modernist Rome, as though that grace is an infallible
grace that cannot possibly “get things wrong.” Let it be said
that ALL CATHOLICS have the grace of state available to
fulfill their role in life—popes, cardinals, bishops, priests,
husbands, wives, parents, teachers, etc.—yet look at the
mess the world is in despite the available “graces of state.”
All this reminds me of Vatican II with its endless talk of
the “rights of man” while ignoring the “rights of God.” Let
us not focus so much on Bishop Fellay’s “grace of state”
as a mere superior general of the SSPX, but let us go
higher, and let us look at the “grace of state” of the 1970
FOUNDER of the organization, that Bishop Fellay now
leads. The “grace of the founder” is what the future leaders of
the organization should follow, if they are going to be true to
their “grace of state.” Most, if not all, religious orders, sooner
or later, stray from the initial spirit of their founders. Fr. Ludovic
Barrielle (the priest chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre
to be the spiritual director of his seminary in Ecône) once
said that
the time it takes for a religious order to start to
drift from its founder’s moorings is around 40 years. Today,
40 or so years after the founding of the SSPX, we see
serious problems and divisions facing the SSPX (or the
NOVUS–SSPX). When religious orders thus drift away, a
reform is usually carried out by some, in order to recapture
the original ideals, attitudes and spirit of their founders.
Perhaps the time has come for the SSPX to do the
same. But to recapture the Archbishop’s spirit, we must
carefully, frequently and zealously read the books in which
Archbishop Lefebvre’s words are printed. I remember a
traditional priest, a professor of dogmatic theology, once
saying: “There are many commentaries and explanations
written on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas,
but many, if not most of them, merely complicate the simple
thought of St. Thomas. Go to the source! Read St. Thomas
first, and then, if you cannot understand him, then read the
commentary.” Similarly, in these days, when we are being
told how to interpret Archbishop Lefebvre by this or that
priest, who professes to know the Archbishop’s thought—
go first to the source, the Archbishop! What was bad in his
day, has become much worse today. What applied then,
applies even more today. If he spoke strongly then, he
would speak more strongly today! He spoke simply while
alive, and he still speaks simply from beyond the grave!
1974
“We hold firmly with all our heart
and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of
the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to
the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome
.... We refuse on the other hand, and have always
refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and
Neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly
manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after
the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration of November 21, 1974)
1976
“We are not of this new religion!
We do not accept this new religion! We are of the
religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion.
We are not of this “universal religion” as they call
it today—this is not the Catholic religion any more.
We are not of this liberal, modernist religion which
has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith,
its own catechisms, its own “ecuмenical Bible.
We cannot accept these things. They are contrary
to our faith. It is an immense, immense pain for us,
to think that we are in difficulty with Rome because
of our faith! We are in a truly dramatic situation. We
have to choose an appearance of disobedience—for
the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith; it
is impossible, impossible! We choose not to abandon
our faith, for in that we cannot go wrong.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Ordination Sermon, June 29.1976;
cf.
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=72)
In the days following his ordination sermon Archbishop
Lefebvre was informed by Rome that he was suspended
“a divinis.” The Archbishop’s reaction to this was:
1976
“It deprives me of the right inherent
... of celebrating Holy Mass, and of conferring the
Sacraments, and of preaching in consecrated places:
namely, I am forbidden to celebrate the New Mass, to
confer the new sacraments, to preach the new doctrine.”
Humorously, he saw the suspension as a ‘gift’ to
prevent him from following all the Modernist changes  He
then speaks of Rome’s demand, through Msgr. Benelli’s
letter of June 25th 1976, which required the SSPX’s fidelity
to the Church of Vatican II. Msgr. Benelli writes...
“If they have good will and are seriously prepared
for a priestly ministry in true fidelity to the Conciliar
Church, finding the best solution for them will then
be undertaken, but let them also make a beginning
through this act of obedience to the Church.”
Archbishop Lefebvre continues:
“What could be clearer? We must [according
to Rome] henceforth obey and be faithful to the
Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church.
Right there is our whole problem:
We are suspended a
divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church,
to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar
Church is a schismatic Church because it breaks with
the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its
new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions,
its new worship ...The Church that affirms such errors
is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar
Church is, therefore, not Catholic.”(Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension “a
Divinis,” July 29.1976; cf.
http://www.angelusonline.org/index.
php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=72)
1976
“...our attitude in the face of the
upheaval brought about by Vatican II—either we
conform to the official directives of those holding
positions of authority within the Church ... or we
integrally preserve the Church’s treasure.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Members of the Society,
Letter N° 2, Christmas.1976)
1977
“We are incriminated because we
have chosen the so-called way of disobedience. But we
must understand clearly what this way of disobedience
consists of. We may truthfully say that, if we have
chosen the way of apparent disobedience, we have
chosen the way of true obedience...those who follow
the new way...they are the ones who have chosen the
way of disobedience. Following Tradition is precisely
the sign of our obedience.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Poitiers, September 3, 1977)
1978
“We now know with whom we
have to deal.
We know perfectly well that we are
dealing with a “diabolical hand” which is located at
Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the
destruction of the Church! And this is why we have the
right and the duty to refuse this obedience…I believe
that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who
present themselves in offices which were occupied
by Cardinals….. “Are you with the Catholic Church?”
“Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I
dealing?”
If I am dealing with someone who has a
pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such
a person? Have I the duty to listen to them and to
obey them?”(Archbishop Lefebvre, 1978, Ordination Sermon, Apologia
Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Vol. 2, p. 209, Michael Davies)
1980
“I have never changed. I have
preached and done what the Church has always
taught. I have never changed what the Church said in
the Council of Trent and at the First Vatican Council.
So who has changed?...It is the enemy, as St. Pius
X said, the enemy who is working within the Church
because he wants the Church to be finished with her
tradition.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily, Venice, 7 April 1980)
1984
“We are convinced of this, it is they
who are wrong, who have changed course, who have
broken with the Tradition of the Church, who have
rushed into novelties, we are convinced of this. That
is why we do not rejoin them and why we cannot work
with them; we cannot collaborate with the people who
depart from the spirit of the Church, from the Tradition
of the Church.
I think that it is that outlook that should guide us in
our present situation. Let us not deceive ourselves by
believing that by these little braking actions that are
given on the right and on the left, in the excesses of
the present situation, that we are seeing a complete
return to Tradition. That is not true, that is not true!
They remain always liberal minds. It is always the
liberals who rule Rome, and they remain liberal. There
is no rallying to these people. From the moment when
we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of
the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain
appeasements are given us, certain satisfactions,
certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which
could even be offered to you eventually.
But as long
as one is dealing with people who have made this
agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot
have any confidence. They will string us along little by
little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as
they have not let go of these false ideas. So, from my
point of view, it is not a question of doing whatever
one can. Those who would have a tendency to want to
accept that will
end up being recycled.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, December 13, 1984,
Address to the priests of the French District)
1986
“In the Church there is no law
or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a
diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should
resist whatever interferes with their faith... If they are
faced with an order putting their faith in danger of
corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey....
It is because we judge that our faith is endangered
by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we
have the duty to disobey and keep the Tradition. Let
us add this, that the greatest service we can render
to the Church and to the successor of Peter is to
reject the reformed and liberal Church ... I am not of
that religion.
I do not accept that new religion. It is a
liberal, modernist religion....
Christians are divided ... Priests no longer know
what to do; either they obey blindly what their
superiors impose on them, and lose to some degree
the faith, or they resist, but with the feeling of separating
themselves from the Pope...Two religions confront
each other; we are in a dramatic situation and it is
impossible to avoid a choice.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986, Open Letter to Confused
Catholics, chapter 18, “True & False Obedience”)
These quotes take us from the beginnings of the SSPX’s
1976 division with Rome, up to 1986 and the preparation
for the episcopal consecrations in 1988. In Part Two, we
will look at the words of Archbishop Lefebvre in the last
5 years of his life.
We recommend that you take time
to purchase and read the many sermons, writings and
accounts of Archbishop Lefebvre’s life—so as to learn,
understand and absorb the spirit of the man, chosen by
God, to be the FOUNDER, not just leader, of the SSPX.[end of Brochure 1 -- Brochure 2 has more recent material.]
Most regrettably, what we have today is a duplicate of what Archbishop
Lefebvre faced in his day, only HE DID NOT HAVE HIS OWN EXAMPLE TO
GUIDE HIM, as we most fortunately do, today:
We now know perfectly well that
we are dealing with a “diabolical hand”
which is located at Menzingen, and
which is demanding, by obedience, the
destruction of the Society of St. Pius X! 
Topic: Dont Let Them re-Direct the Discussion - Its not about Obedience! (Read 1388 times)