A foretaste of it:

"Juridical union with neo-modernist Rome? No!, unless this apostate Rome come back to the integrity of the Catholic faith, from which outside of it there's no salvation. If this is the case there's no necessity of regularization; because it would be them returning to the Church, from where they should never have left."


Don't you all miss this straight talk of calling a spade a spade?  :alcohol:

I have no idea why it came out that way, I tried again and it did the same thing. :sad:

Maybe the moderators could fix it?

http://lefebvristes.forum-box.com/t360-NOUVEAU-TEXTE-DES-DOMINICAINS-D-AVRILLE-CONTRE-LES-ACCORDS.htm

This "Arsenius" is a brave and holy man.  May the Good Lord bless him and give him strength!  He already has the blessings of Saint Francis through my humble prayers.

Here the English:

Considering ...
(Sel de la Terre, No. 81, Summer 2012)

by Arsenius

1) That Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to Dom Gerard when he wanted to make an agreement with the modernist authorities in Rome. An agreement about which Dom Gerard said that Rome gave everything and asked nothing;

2) That the same Archbishop Lefebvre said after the consecrations that from that time, he would sign an agreement with Rome only if the Roman authorities agreed with several Church docuмents condemning modern errors;

3) That, in addition, Archbishop Lefebvre had repented of having signed a memorandum of understanding with the Vatican for permission to consecrate bishops, because he concluded that the intentions of the Roman authorities were not good;

4) That, later, Archbishop Lefebvre told the future Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, that he could not agree with him, and that we, the traditionalists, we were trying to Christianize the world while he, the Cardinal, and the other progressivists were working to de-Christianize the world;

5) That the Fraternity of St. Peter, who had received from Rome the right to celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively, was subsequently forced to accept the fact that its members can also celebrate the New Mass;

6) That Archbishop Lefebvre said that he did not agree that we should place ourselves under the authority of those who do not profess the faith in its integrity;

7) That in time of war, to take care to follow the positive laws (for example, traffic laws) may be unwise and, in some cases, can lead to ѕυιcιdє;

8) That experience shows that very few know how to go back when the Roman authorities do not keep their promises (see the case of the Fraternity of St. Peter);

9) That being "reconciled" with Rome produces the result of no longer considering the Roman authorities (progressives) as enemies against whom we must fight;

10) That Archbishop Lefebvre said that progressives are similar to those infected with a contagious disease, and should therefore be avoided so as not to become sick like them.

11) That in all parts of the world the faithful are in a "state of necessity", which gives them the right to appeal to priests who hold to integrally Catholic doctrine, and also to receive the sacraments and assist at the mass according to traditional rites, and that priests have a duty of charity to go to help these faithful, even without the permission of the local bishop.

We judge ...

1) That if Archbishop Lefebvre was still alive, he would make no agreement with the Roman authorities, even if they offered it to us, and even if they asked nothing from us, unless the authorities first condemned the modern errors that have crept into the bosom of the Church, and which have been condemned by previous Popes;

2) That even today Archbishop Lefebvre still could not agree with Benedict XVI, because he still has the same thinking that he had as a cardinal;

3) That we cannot trust the promises made by men who withdraw the guarantees that they had previously given in favor of tradition;

4) That, as Archbishop Lefebvre himself had judged, we must not put ourselves under obedience to those who do not profess the faith in its integrity;

5) That in the midst of this terrible war in which we find ourselves (between the Holy Church and modernism, between truth and error, between light and darkness), to seek the regularization of our situation is a reckless act and suicidal: it is giving ourselves to the enemy;

6) That it would be, in a way, tempting God, by putting ourselves in a situation that probably:

a) will lead us to concede important points when the progressive Roman authorities ask it of us;

b) will stop us from treating certain authorities as enemies to fight against;

c) will leave us to be "contaminated" by progressivism;

7) That it would be a mistake to limit our field of action to those places for which we would given permission by the Roman authorities or by the diocesan bishops, and not be able to go to the faithful who call us, because in such a place, we might not have official permission to exercise the priestly ministry, because it would not considered to be a grave and general "state of necessity."

Objection ...

One could object that Archbishop Lefebvre knew very well everything we have said and yet, on several occasions he expressed a desire that the Society’s situation be regularized before the Roman authorities.

We answer ...

... that even if this were true, nonetheless, from May 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre no longer expressed that desire and, on the contrary, since that time he took the position that all agreements with the Roman authorities should be preceded by a profession of faith by Rome regarding the great anti-liberal docuмents of the Magisterium, such as Pascendi, Quanta cura, etc.. He held that new position until his death.

The motive that led to this change was the fact that he could clearly see that neo-modernist Rome has no intention of protecting or supporting Catholic Tradition.

Conclusion

Legal union with Rome? Yes, but in the integrity of the Catholic faith, outside which there is no salvation, and with the freedom to fulfill our duties towards God and neighbor.

Here's the text in full though.

___

En considérant...
(Sel de la Terre n°81, été 2012)
 
par Arsenius

 

1°) Que Mgr Lefebvre, s'est opposé à Dom Gérard quand il voulait faire un accord avec les autorités modernistes de Rome. Un accord à propos duquel Dom Gérard disait que Rome donnait tout et ne demandait rien ;

 2°) Que le même Mgr Lefebvre a dit, après les sacres, que à partir de ce moment-là, il signerait des accords avec Rome seulement si les autorités romaines souscrivaient à plusieurs docuмents de l'Église condamnant les erreurs d'aujourd'hui ;


3°) Que, de plus, Mgr Lefebvre s'est repenti d'avoir signé un protocole d'accord avec le Vatican pour obtenir la permission de sacrer des évêques, car il est arrivé à la conclusion que les intentions des autorités romaines n'étaient pas bonnes ;

 
4°) Que, plus tard, Mgr Lefebvre a dit au futur Benoît XVI, alors cardinal Ratzinger, qu'il ne pouvait pas être d'accord avec lui, et que nous, les traditionalistes, nous essayons de christianiser le monde tandis que lui , le cardinal, et les autres progressistes ne travaillent qu'à déchristianiser le monde ;
 



5°) Que la Fraternité Saint-Pierre, qui a reçu de Rome la faculté de célébrer exclusivement la messe traditionnelle, a été obligée postérieurement d'accepter le fait que ses membres puissent célébrer aussi la nouvelle messe ;
 

6°) Que Mgr Lefebvre a dit qu'il ne convient pas que nous nous placions sous l'autorité de ceux qui ne professent pas la foi dans son intégrité;

 
7°) Qu'en temps de guerre, s'occuper de suivre les lois positives (par exemple le Code de la route) peut être imprudent et, en certains cas, peut conduire au ѕυιcιdє ;

8°) Que l'expérience nous montre que très peu savent retourner en arrière quand les autorités romaines ne tiennent pas leurs promesses (voir le cas de la Fraternité Saint-Pierre) ;

 
9°) Que le fait d'être « réconcilié » avec Rome produit comme conséquence de ne plus considérer les autorités romaines (progressistes) comme des ennemis contre qui il faut combattre;

 
10°) Que Mgr Lefebvre a dit que les progressistes sont semblables à ceux qui sont contaminés par une maladie contagieuse, et qu'il faut donc les éviter, pour ne pas devenir malades comme eux.

 
11°) Que dans toutes les parties du monde les fidèles sont en « état de nécessité », ce qui leur donne le droit de s'adresser à des prêtres à la doctrine intégralement catholique, et aussi de recevoir les sacrements et assister à la messe selon les rites traditionnels ; et que les prêtres ont un devoir de charité d'aller aider ces fidèles, même sans la permission de l'évêque du lieu.

 
Nous jugeons...

 
1°) Que si Mgr Lefebvre vivait encore, il ne ferait aucun accord avec les autorités romaines, même si elles nous l'offraient, et même si on ne nous demandait rien, à moins que ces autorités ne condamnent d'abord les erreurs modernes qui s'insinuent dans le sein de l'Église, et qui sont condamnées par les papes antérieurs ;
 

2°) Que même aujourd'hui Mgr Lefebvre ne pourrait toujours pas être d'accord avec Benoît XVI, parce que celui-ci a encore la même pensée que lorsqu'il était cardinal ;
 

3°) Que nous ne pouvons pas avoir confiance dans les promesses faites par des hommes qui suppriment les garanties en faveur de la Tradition qu'ils avaient pourtant données antérieurement ;
 

4°) Que, comme Mgr Lefebvre l'a jugé lui-même, nous ne devons pas nous mettre sous l'obéissance de ceux qui ne professent pas la foi dans son intégrité ;
 

5°) Que dans l'affreuse guerre dans laquelle nous sommes (entre la  sainte Église et le modernisme ; entre la vérité et l'erreur ; entre la lumière et les ténèbres), chercher la régularisation de notre situation est une chose imprudente et un ѕυιcιdє : c'est nous donner aux ennemis ;
 

6°) Que ce serait, d'une certaine manière, tenter Dieu, en nous mettant dans une situation qui probablement :

a) nous conduira à concéder des points importants quand les autorités romaines progressistes nous le demanderont ;

b) nous fera cesser de traiter certaines autorités comme des ennemis à combattre ;

c) nous laissera « contaminer » par le progressisme ;
 

7°) Que ce serait une erreur de restreindre notre champ d'action aux places que nous donneraient les autorités romaines ou permettraient les évêques diocésains, et de ne pas aller aux fidèles qui nous appellent, parce que, en tel lieu, nous n'aurions pas la permission officielle d'exercer le ministère sacerdotal, car cela serait ne pas considérer le grave et général « état de nécessité ».
 

Objection...

 
On pourrait nous objecter que Mgr Lefebvre connaissait très bien tout ce que nous avons dit et, cependant, en plusieurs occasions, il a manifesté le désir que la situation de la Fraternité soit régularisée devant les autorités romaines.
 

Nous répondons...

... que même si c'était vrai, cependant à partir de mai 1988 Mgr Lefebvre n'a plus manifesté ce désir et, tout au contraire, depuis cette époque-là il a pris comme position que tous les accords avec les autorités romaines devaient être précédés d'une profession de foi par Rome sur les grands docuмents anti-libéraux du Magistère, comme, par exemple, Pascendi,Quanta cura, etc. Il a soutenu cette nouvelle position jusqu'à sa mort.

Le motif qui l'a amené à ce changement a été le fait qu'il a pu voir clairement que la Rome néo-moderniste n'avait aucune intention de protéger ou d'approuver la Tradition catholique.

 
Conclusion

Union juridique avec Rome ? Oui, mais dans l'intégrité de la foi catholique, hors de laquelle il n'y a point de salut, et dans la liberté d'accomplir nos devoirs envers Dieu et le prochain.

Trust that Fr Rostand has read this!

And thank you, ancien regime, for posting the English version!
I'll just leave it quoted here so it's on the second page of 10 posts, for convenience.
(I removed the "quote" box to make the font size larger and easier to read.)
[my corrections in brackets - I hope no one is disgruntled for this]

Here the English:

Considering ...
(Sel de la Terre, No. 81, Summer 2012)

by Arsenius..

1) That Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to Dom Gerard when he wanted to make an agreement with the modernist authorities in Rome. [It was an] agreement about which Dom Gerard said that Rome [would give] everything and [would ask for] nothing;

2) That the same Archbishop Lefebvre said after the consecrations that from that time, he would sign an agreement with Rome only if the Roman authorities agreed with several Church docuмents condemning modern errors;
[For the record, I'd like to know which docuмents those were!]

3) That, in addition, Archbishop Lefebvre had repented of having signed a memorandum of understanding with the Vatican for permission to consecrate bishops, because he concluded that the intentions of the Roman authorities were not good;

4) That, later, Archbishop Lefebvre told the future Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, that he could not agree with him, and that we, the traditionalists, we were trying to Christianize the world while he, the Cardinal, and the other progressivists were working to de-Christianize the world;

5) That the Fraternity of St. Peter, who had received from Rome the right to celebrate the [Canonized Traditional Latin] Mass exclusively, was subsequently forced to accept the [revised requirement] that its members can also celebrate the New Mass;

6) That Archbishop Lefebvre said that he did not agree that we should place ourselves under the authority of those who do not profess the faith in its integrity;

7) That in time of war, to take care to follow the positive laws (for example, traffic laws) may be unwise and, in some cases, can lead to ѕυιcιdє; [Excellent analogy!]

8) That experience shows that very few know how to go back when the Roman authorities do not keep their promises (see the case of the Fraternity of St. Peter);

9) That being "reconciled" with Rome produces the result of no longer considering the Roman authorities (progressives) as enemies against whom we must fight;

10) That Archbishop Lefebvre said that progressives are similar to those infected with a contagious disease, and should therefore be avoided so as not to become sick like them.

11) That in all parts of the world the faithful are in a "state of necessity", which gives them the right to appeal to priests who hold to integrally Catholic doctrine, and also to receive the sacraments and assist at the Mass according to traditional rites, and that priests have a duty of charity to go to help these faithful, even without the permission of the local bishop.


We judge ...

1) That if Archbishop Lefebvre [were today] still alive, he would make no agreement with the Roman authorities, even if they offered it to us, and even if they asked nothing from us, unless the authorities [would] first [condemn those] modern errors that have crept into the bosom of the Church [despite having] been condemned by previous Popes;

2) That even today Archbishop Lefebvre still could not agree with Benedict XVI, because he still has the same thinking that he had as a cardinal;

3) That we cannot trust the promises made by men who withdraw the guarantees that they had previously given in favor of tradition;

4) That, as Archbishop Lefebvre himself had judged, we must not put ourselves under obedience to those who do not profess the faith in its integrity;

5) That in the midst of this terrible war in which we find ourselves (between the Holy Church and Modernism, between truth and error, between light and darkness), to seek the regularization of our situation is a reckless act and suicidal: it is giving ourselves to the enemy;

6) That [under these conditions regularization] would be, in a way, tempting God, by putting ourselves in a situation that probably:

. a) [would] lead us to concede important points when the progressive Roman authorities ask it of us;

. b) [would] stop us from treating certain authorities as enemies to fight against;

. c) [would] leave us to be "contaminated" by progressivism;

7) That it would be a mistake to limit our field of action to those places for which we would [be] given permission [to act] by the Roman authorities or by the diocesan bishops, and [we would then] not be able to go to the faithful who call us, because in such a place, we might not have official permission to exercise the priestly ministry, because [those people calling us] would [be] considered [as not being in] a grave and general "state of necessity."


Objection ...

One could object that Archbishop Lefebvre knew very well everything we have said and yet, on several occasions he expressed a desire that the Society’s situation be regularized before the Roman authorities.


We answer ...

... that even if this [had been] true, nonetheless, from May 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre no longer expressed that desire and, on the contrary since that time, he took the position that all agreements with the Roman authorities should be preceded by a profession of faith by Rome regarding the great anti-liberal docuмents of the Magisterium, such as Pascendi, Quanta cura, etc.. He held that new position until his death.

[Was one of these "great anti-liberal docuмents" the Athanasian Creed?]

The motive that led to this change was the fact that he could clearly see that neo-modernist Rome has no intention of protecting or supporting Catholic Tradition.


Conclusion

Legal union with Rome? Yes, but in the integrity of the Catholic faith, outside which there is no salvation, and with the freedom to fulfill our duties towards God and neighbor.



[I invite any constructive criticism of my corrections, such that we may obtain,
ultimately, a version that is as accurate and correct as possible, because we may
well be finding it useful to have this to quote in the future. It is quite timely today.]

I admit to being a picky translator (but, I hope, not too thin skinned about it), but since you opened the door to discussion with your comment that you hope that "no one is disgruntled about this,"  I am stepping forward to disagree with you over the translation of the French "imparfait" into English. I think you are a little to free with translating it into the English conditional tense when the tense itself describes an ongoing past action with no specified completion.

Also, please note that in the French, the "We judge" subsection statements 6 (a),(b) & (c) are in the future tenses.

Otherwise, I am happy to have provided a service. . . and look forward to many heated discussions over the translation of French into English.    :smile:

You won't be getting any "heated discussion" of translation from French to English
from me, because I don't know French. When I see "imparfait," all I know is that
a parfait is a dessert with fruit and yogurt in layers, so maybe an IMparfait is a
dessert WITHOUT either fruit or yougurt, or both! DUUUUH.



I am merely looking at the English product you provided and I'm trying to
understand what it says. When I read certain phrases that would never be written
that way by a native English author, I have to wonder why is it translated that way
from French? There are obviously different customs of expression in these two
languages. The point is, what is the essence of the message? What is being
communicated, really?

If you take one essential message and put it into French, but take the same
essential message and also put it into English, are they going to always use the
same parts of speech and the same verb conjugations? I don't know. Perhaps not.

If you know French, and you think that something I have suggested is essentially
not what the source docuмent is saying, then fine, you be the judge. All I am
suggesting is some few words that make the message much more sensible for
me, and carry a consistent clarity of content. If the author, Arsenius, would prefer
to have an English translation that is more vague, unclear, weak or ambiguous,
there is nothing I can do about it. I'm just offering suggestions. For all I know,
if my suggestions, translated into French, would render a different French copy,
it might be a copy that is not unacceptable to the author, but perhaps would he say
he had chosen other words because that's just the customary way of speaking in
French?

English is a goofy language in many ways. There is a lot of things you can't do
with it, because the placement of words in the sentence affects the meaning of
the sentence, such that the same words, in a different sequence, renders a
different meaning. The same sequence rules might not apply in another language.

Take the Mass, for example. The original, in Latin, was translated into English and
into French. But if you take these two translations and compare them, you don't
get literally the same thing. Therefore, a French-English missal might have
different English copy when the source missal was the French translation, than
the English copy you get when Latin is the source. It could be useful, therefore,
to put this docuмent in question into Latin first, and then take the Latin and render
an English translation without considering the French original. The reason for this
is that Latin is a more versatile language. It does not depend on the placement of
words to determine the meaning of a sentence. Therefore, Latin is objectively a
more UNIVERSAL language, and, as such, is more appropriate for the standard
tongue of the universal Church! Of course, the judgment of the translator plays a
large part with translating from French INTO Latin, so who knows what that would
entail?

I am really at a loss for not knowing any French in this discussion. Therefore, I
will have to submit to the opinions of others who know French and English. I was
merely making suggestions that provide a solid message in English.