Fr. Le Roux's November "Letter to Friends and Benefactors"
(Courtesy of The Recusant, via Ecclesia Militans)



Subversion or Tradition?


 
November 10, 2013



Dear Friends and Benefactors,

The man who, for many, represented the spirit of the French Revolution in the Church, Talleyrand, was not remembered as an attractive man. He limped, he grinned nervously and almost perpetually, he was bent by age and perversity. He was feared by all, despised by many, known as a worshipper at the altar of power rather than at the altar of God. Nevertheless, he was referred to as Monsignor de Talleyrand, as he was a bishop.

Using his methods and starting from his times until the present day, the masters of the Revolution have spread subversion throughout our poor world, until it has become part of the air we breathe. Subversion impregnates the whole of society, infiltrating families and even the sanctuary. Subversion is the weapon of the Revolution, the weapon of the devil. Do we need proof? We need look no further than the 1960's: "Don't trust anyone over 30"; "If it feels good, do it". These and other scandalous and satanic slogans have expressed a violent hatred of an order above man and of which he is not master.

The Revolution institutionalizes the hatred of authority, presenting it as the last obstacle to be destroyed at all costs to establish revolutionary chaos. But they called it "freedom". Nevertheless, authority is necessary to the full development of man, who would remain a weakling without this vigilant power that takes care and allows him to reach the maturity of his powers safely. By its shadowy suggestions and half-truths - repeated and repeated and repeated until they attain a life of their own - subversion works to bring down authority, profiting from our natural inclination to disobey. Little by little, authority appears as the enemy that wishes us harm or leads us to our defeat.

More than a technique, subversion is not only the tool, but the real heart of Revolution. Let us be clear: when we speak of Revolution, we do nto just mean a historical French revolution - we mean a rejection of God. Revolution is, in the first place, a rejection of our sonship of God. Following in Satan's footsteps, the subversive rejects the divine fatherhood and all other paternal relationships that derive from it. It perfectly realizes the motto, "Neither God, nor Master". Distilling this poison of hatred of our Father, and being itself a poison, subversion leads the Revolution and its followers to their damnation: a tool of the devil, it eats its own children as soon as it can separate them from the real Father.

Subversion is thus totally opposed to Tradition, which is essentially the worship of God the Father. Tradition acknowleges that God exists and that it is essential for Him to reveal Himself as Father. Authority, consequently, is recognized and respected as this divine paternity that guides and protects man. Sometimes, when the authority in charge ceases to be faithful to its role of guardian of the common good, it falls to the defenders of Tradition to remind that authority of its role and to do this even publicly, thus respecting the very nature of authority while rejecting the secretive, anonymous, cowardly methods of the subversive.

But this public statement, far from being a knee-jerk reaction to authority, is a service to and defense of of authority. The opposition is only apparent, due to dramatic circuмstances when those who have received authority from God are themselves influenced by the revolutionary principles.

Between subversion and tradition the opposition is absolute and tradition would disappear if it suddenly were to accept the principle of subversion and become suspicious of any form of authority.

For the last months this subtle temptation of distrust of authority has been poisoning the ranks of the defenders of the tradition of the Church.

Some people, fooled by suspicions repeated and amplified by the Internet, have been taken up by the irrational fear of an alleged treason, non-existent and never proven. Regardless of the personal good will, such people sadly do the work of the devil. Their defamatory attacks, written as if they had authority and "inside" knowlege - when, in fact, they know nothing and are only "cutting and pasting" the opinions of people like themselves - are only the tools of the spirit of subversion and revolution. It is high time to cease this suicidal internal war, just when a new formal attack is in course against the last vestiges of Tradition in the bosom of Holy Mother Church.

The fight for the honour of God and of His Paternity should protect us from falling into the temptation of embracing the principles that undermine this honor and this paternity.

The liturgy of Advent invites us to follow Our Lady and St. Joseph on the road that leads to the Crib. This road is one of quiet dependence, of radiant simplicity, of honest filiation and humble submission to the will of God.

It is a road of conversion, far from any subversive path.

Let us pray for the strength boldly to follow it!

In Christo sacerdote et Maria,


Fr. Yves Le Roux

And another reminder from Fr. de Jorna (Rector, Econe):


(Thanks to La Sapiniere via Un Eveque s'est Leve - the commentary has been abridged but Fr de Jorna's intervention is complete)

 This docuмent was distributed to all members of the General Chapter (of the SSPX)  in July 2012 and read out loud to all present. No objection to it was raised from any member.

 Father de Jorna (Rector of the seminary at Econe, Switzerland) proves that Bishop Fellay’s “Doctrinal Declaration “ of April 2012 amounts to the “hermeneutic of continuity”' of Benedict XVI.

Criticism of the doctrinal statement of 15 April 2012

 Fr de Jorna at the General Chapter of July 2012

 / II. Of the Doctrinal Declaration

 Absolutely necessary distinctions must be made concerning the magisterium. We accept all the magisterium [official teaching]of the Church until Vatican II. But since then, there is a new magisterium, for the most part opposed to the previous magisterium. We cannot, therefore, declare that we accept this new magisterium as magisterium of the Church.

 "Either we are with his [John Paul II’s] predecessors who proclaimed the truth of all time, who  are consistent with the Church from the Apostles until Pope Pius XII . Or we are with the Council and then we are against the predecessors of the current Pope . You have to choose, there is a choice to be made. It is clear that Tradition is with the 250 popes who preceded Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council. That is clear. Or the Church has always been wrong. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. We must be firm, clear and determined not to hesitate. "(Archbishop Marcel  Lefebvre , 14 May 1989 , in the French review “Vue de Haut,” no. 13 p. 70).
 This distinction is all the more important now that Benedict XVI has declared his intention:

 "The issues to be addressed now are essentially doctrinal in nature, particularly those concerning the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post -conciliar magisterium of the Popes ... the magisterial authority of the Church cannot be frozen in 1962 and this must be very clear for the Society [of St Pius X] " (Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops of the world concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops, March 10, 2009).

 On the other hand, the 1989 profession of faith was consistently rejected by our founder because it required adherence to Vatican II.

 III 1 . of the Doctrinal Declaration
 
 We cannot accept the doctrine of “Lumen Gentium” chapter III. Even understood in the light of the Note previa , no . 22  to “Lumen Gentium,” it retains all its ambiguity because it still implies that there is in the Church a double subject  of the Primacy [the Pope alone AND the Pope with all the bishops] and opens the door to the denial of the teaching of Vatican I ( DS 3054 ).

 Archbishop Lefebvre insisted on this error on the occasion of the publication of the new 1983 Code of [Canon Law]) . This § III , 1 does not avoid a serious ambiguity in that it declares acceptance of both the teaching of Vatican I on the primacy of the Pope and of Vatican II on collegiality., It is at least seriously questionable whether this is possible. And the Holy See will not fail to see the possibility and even the duty to interpret the first Vatican Council according to Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre would never have signed these statements and there is no reference to ch .III of  “Lumen Gentium” in the1988  Protocol.

 III , 2 and 3 of the Doctrinal Declaration.
 
“Tradition” can be understood in three ways:
 1)    the subject  [who does the transmitting],
 2)    the act [of transmitting]
 3)    the object [that which is transmitted])

 The modernists play on the ambiguity of this plurality of meanings. Only Tradition in the sense of “subject” and “act” may be called “living”, not Tradition in the sense of “object.”

The latter is unchangeable in its meaning. It would have been better to have taken the words from our doctrinal discussions and to have spoken only of “constant” Tradition. The anti -modernist oath ( DS 3548-3549 ) clearly rejects the false notion of the new living tradition when it evokes " the absolute and immutable truth " of Divine Tradition.” These clarifications are all the more essential since Benedict XVI develops a false meaning  of Tradition along  evolutionary lines .

 On the other hand, to say that "the Church perpetuates and transmits all that she is and all that she believes” is not unambiguous. Firstly because, for Benedict XVI and Vatican II, the fundamental subject that transmits Tradition is the Church, meaning the whole People of God, a living subject making its way through history, and secondly because the magisterium of the Church does not pass on what the Church “is and believes "; it preserves, transmits and defends the objective deposit of faith received from Christ and the Apostles − all the truths revealed by God, keeping always the same meaning. For Benedict XVI , the Church, “People of God,” transmits its belief by which is meant an “experience” of immanentist connotation. It would be better to say that the Magisterium of the Church teaches with authority, in the name of God, the definitive and immutable meaning of the revealed Truth , having recourse to the normative expressions which are the dogmas.

 III , 4 and 5 . of the Doctrinal Declaration
 
 We cannot say, without being more precise, that Vatican II, “enlightens, deepens and clarifies certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church.” For, in the mind of Benedict XVI, Vatican II wanted to redefine the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought. This led to a contradiction or serious putting into question of the constant teaching of the Catholic Tradition on several key points. Religious freedom is in contradiction with Tradition. Ecuмenism and collegiality also break with Tradition. Let us remember that in 1978 Archbishop Lefebvre said:

“We profess the Catholic faith fully and completely ... We reject and anathematize all that was rejected and anathematized by the Church ... Insofar as the texts of Vatican II and the post- conciliar reforms oppose the doctrine expounded by those popes from before Vatican II , and give free rein to the errors they condemned, that we feel in conscience bound to make serious reservations about these texts and these reforms. "(French review, Itineraires, n. 233, May 1978, p. 108-109 ) .

 It is necessary to repeat that our founder always said:
 "…saying that we see, we judge the docuмents of the Council in the light of Tradition, obviously means that we reject those that are contrary to tradition; that we interpret according to Tradition those which are ambiguous; and that we accept those that are conform to tradition.”( Vue de Haut, n. 13, p. 57). These precisions are all the more necessary in that the Roman authorities play on the word Tradition. "In the mind of the Holy Father [John Paul II] and that of Cardinal Ratzinger, if I understand correctly, it would be necessary  to integrate the decrees of the Council into Tradition; make it so they fit in at any cost. This is an impossible undertaking." (Vue de Haut, n. 13, p. 57).

 We cannot let it be understood that it is possible and necessary to reconcile Vatican II and Tradition, we would lose the freedom to denounce errors and we would be in a golden cage amid the "spaces of theological freedom” that Bishop Ocariz speaks of .

/ III , 7 . of the Doctrinal Declaration
 
 We cannot simply assert that the Novus Ordo Missae is valid. The New Mass is bad in itself. It presents an occasion of the sin of infidelity. This is why it cannot oblige under pain of sin in one’s duty to sanctify the Sunday. At a time when Rome recognizes the two rites it is necessary to remember, " concerning the New Mass, let us immediately destroy this absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, you can participate. The Church has always forbidden attending the Masses of schismatics and heretics, even if they are valid. It is obvious that we cannot participate in sacrilegious Masses, or Masses that put our faith in danger. " (Archbishop Lefebvre, La messe de toujours, Fr Troadec, Clovis, 2005,  p . 391 )

/ III 8 .of the Doctrinal Declaration
 
 We have always refused the new Code of 1983. It is "imbued with ecuмenism and personalism , it sins gravely against the very purpose of the law" ( Archbishop Lefebvre , Ordinances of the SSPX Orders p. 4). In addition, this new Code conveys the spirit of the new ecclesiology; democratic and collegialist .

Conclusion.
 
 This statement is profoundly  ambiguous and sins by omission against the clear and distinct denunciation of the principal errors that are still rampant within the Church and destroy the faith of Catholics . This statement, as it stands, suggests that we accept the premise of the "hermeneutic of continuity ." Such a docuмent, if it were the principle of an agreement, would make such an agreement equivocal from the start and would favour any subsequent drifting away [from our original positions].