CathInfo.com

Coat of arms of the Monastery of the Holy Cross
Post


All posts
The Modernists
Photo of the writer: Monastery of the Holy Cross
Monastery of the Holy Cross
14 hours ago
2 min read


“Therefore, no one who considers them the most dangerous enemies of the Church will stray from the truth.” Thus speaks Saint Pius X in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. And why? He himself answers: “In truth, as we have said, not outside, but within the Church they plot their pernicious schemes; and, therefore, it is, so to speak, in her very veins and entrails that the danger lies, all the more ruinous the more intimately they know her.”

 

So, are the Popes of the Conciliar Church modernists? Yes, and they plotted their pernicious advice into the very veins of the Church during the Second Vatican Council, corrupting the notion of Tradition and even the very notion of truth.

 

an alliance that constitutes the very root of the modernist system. Pius XII's condemnations of the New Theology and its propagators were ignored, and the council and the post-council period became permeated by modernist errors and mentality. This is sometimes a diffuse, almost unconscious modernism, but it prevents current bishops and cardinals from seeing that Archbishop Lefebvre was and is right in his struggle.an alliance that constitutes the very root of the modernist system. Pius XII's condemnations of the New Theology and its propagators were ignored, and the council and the post-council period became permeated by modernist errors and mentality. This is sometimes a diffuse, almost unconscious modernism, but it prevents current bishops and cardinals from seeing that Archbishop Lefebvre was and is right in his struggle.Are the current Pope, as well as the cardinals and bishops, modernists? Yes, because most of them accept the Second Vatican Council, which revealed an alliance between false modern philosophies and the Faith— an alliance that constitutes the very root of the modernist system. Pius XII's condemnations of the New Theology and its propagators were ignored, and the council and the post-council period became permeated by modernist errors and mentality. This is sometimes a diffuse, almost unconscious modernism, but it prevents current bishops and cardinals from seeing that Archbishop Lefebvre was and is right in his struggle. 

 

May the Society of Saint Pius X, which has received and transmits true philosophy and true theology, know how to avoid the enemies "who hide within the very bosom of the Church" and who today believe they have conquered and wish to conquer the Society and all Tradition. May God forbid it.

 

But we must say that, unfortunately, the Fraternity, in its last twenty-five years, has been imprudently drawing closer to Rome and, consequently, has been weakening in the fight against the modernists who occupy the Vatican. It is to be feared that it will not be able to discern and reject all the traps that will inevitably be set for it on the occasion of the new consecrations.

 

Both in 1988 and now, Archbishop Lefebvre remains a model for combating the same enemies that, since the Second Vatican Council, have plagued the Holy Church. It is enough to follow his example and thus not only protect oneself from the attacks of the modernists, but also work to increase the number and merit of the faithful.

 

We pray for the Fraternity, to which we owe everything that is best in us, for it was from its founder that we received the priesthood as well as the teachings that allowed us not to shipwreck in our faith. It was also from one of its sons in the episcopate that we received ours.

 

For all these reasons, we pray for the Fraternity and wholeheartedly wish for the success of these consecrations, if they are carried out with the same spirit of prudence and faith as Archbishop Lefebvre.

 

 

Thomas Aquinas OSB



 https://www.mosteirodasantacruz.org/post/os-modernistas

May the good Bishop keep us on the right path by reminding us of Archbishop Lefebvre’s wisdom and prudence. With them may we be protected from sedevacatism which usually starts by rejecting Pius XII's liturgical changes.

So, you want to protect yourself from true Catholicism? 

The consecration of Bishop Zendejas was at the chapel of a priest who was a known non dogmatic sedevacantist.
Non dogmatic sedes have ALWAYS been tolerated in the the resistance. You are totally ignorant of the history of tradition.

Do you not feel bad about that?

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/bishop-faure-resigns-from-usml-over-sedevacantism/  

 2017 ?
Following months of intrigue, dissension, and unfruitful discussion, Bishop Jean-Michel Faure has resigned his membership in the USML.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}]At issue was the matter of sedevacantism.
Specifically:[/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size]

• Whether sedevacantists were to be allowed in the USML
• Whether sedevacantists were to be allowed into the seminary via the USML

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
A few weeks ago, the sedevacantist members of the USML convened a meeting of debatable legitimacy to consider these two issues (but most particularly, the admission of Fr. Pierre Roy of Canada).
All non-sedevacantist USML members except one (Fr. Pivert) refused to attend the meeting in protest, but the sedevacantists were not to be thwarted.  They went through with the meeting, admitted Fr. Patrick Roy, and announced their decision to the abstaining members (some of whom also protested the maneuver after the fact).
Bishop Faure was not the only one to resign from the USML over the matter of sedevacantism:
Fr. Rene Trincado also tendered his resignation, and another resignation is expected to be submitted within the next week or so.
All told, 5 of 8 members opposed the admission of Fr. Roy into the USML, which is now being willingly surrendered to the control of the sedevacantists, who now comprise half its members.
The question will remain as to how and why Fr. Rioult and Fr. Pinaud were permitted to have become members in the first place.  A decision back in 2014 seems to have permitted a collaboration with such priests, but which ran squarely against Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1980 statement that:
“The Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters and oblates cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope”
Against this declaration, it is sometimes mentioned that the Archbishop violated this statement by ordaining Fr. Belmont, only to expel him a few months later for his sedevacantism.  Alternately, it is argued that Archbishop Lefebvre was willing to collaborate with sedevacantists like Fr. Coache well after 1980.
As regards examples like Fr. Coache (who was not a member of the SSPX), the explanation seems to be that Archbishop Lefebvre was willing to offer some occasional collaboration with sedevacantists ad extra (i.e., outside the SSPX), but not to tolerate them within the SSPX (i.e., ad infra).  As for those like Fr. Belmont, obviously, if Archbishop Lefebvre was willing to have ordained him, it was with the hope of Fr. Belmont’s amendment, or it would have been incoherent in the extreme to have ordained him against his own rule, only to have expelled him three months later for the same!
In any case, though time has shown that admission of these sedes into the USML was a mistake, the loss of the USML is of marginal importance in the wake of Bishop Faure’s canonical erection of the SAJM (which will preclude in its Constitutions the admission of any sedevacantists -which includes those who refust to pray for the Pope in the Mass- into the seminary, or their incardination into the Society).
Those Constitutions will be published publicly soon.
Meanwhile, the preclusion of sedevacantists from the SAJM and its seminary makes curious this excerpt of the USML declaration posted today, which proclaims:
“When the need arises to administer the sacrament of Confirmation, the priests of the USML will call upon a bishop of the ‘Resistance’ to be kind enough to come to Quebec.”
Perhaps the Resistance bishops will continue to offer assistance to the sedevacantists with regard to confirmations, perhaps not.  But it is inconceivable -in light of Bishop Faure’s resignation, and the Constitutions of the SAJM which preclude sedevacantist admission to the seminary- that the Resistance bishops would ordain their priests.
This means that the NUC (“non una cuм”) priests will be forced to accept the logical consequences of their position in the future, and seek out sedevacantist bishops (which they logically should not object to) to perform this office.
The surrender of the USML into the control of the sedevacantists also brings much needed clarity to the faithful:
The Resistance bishops do not support or condone sedevacantism, and the SAJM has no part with them.
This separation is also an act of charity on the part of Bishop Faure, in that the sedevacantists are made to feel the seriousness of their theological error, which they promote as a light and trifling personal choice:
“Having no intention to prevent anyone from reflecting or holding an opinion on the whys and wherefores of the crisis in the Church, the priests of the USML ask the faithful to respect the positions of one another and not try to impose their personal views. They reiterate their decision not to draw conclusions on the question of the Papacy, despite the enduring and unprecedented crisis, but rather to await the judgement of the Church.”..."


[/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size]*****
Does anyone know if these were dogmatic sedes? Whichever way you slice it, sedevacantism is hopeless, imho.  
As the Bishop states at  the end: 'we are awaiting the judgement of the Church.'
P A X