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

Author Topic: WHY DOES RESISTANCE EXIST? By His Excellency Thomas Aquinas, OSB  (Read 343 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ArmandLouis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Reputation: +9/-0
WHY DOES
RESISTANCE EXIST?
By His Excellency Thomas Aquinas, OSB


The cause of the existence of the Resistance is
none other than Bishop Fellay with his words
and actions. His words minimized the
seriousness of the crisis and the Council. His
actions exposed Tradition to the same fate as
the Ecclesia Dei communities.
Bishop Fellay did not speak like Bishop
Lefebvre. Bishop Lefebvre vigorously
denounced the errors of the Council as well as
those who were at the origin of these errors. He
warned practically all the conciliar popes
against their responsibilities. He told John Paul II
that if he continued on the path of ecuмenism,
he would no longer be the good pastor, and in
the drawing on Assisi, he said, with images and
words, that John Paul II would go to hell if he
remained an ecuмenist. He told Cardinal
Ratzinger that he, Ratzinger, was against the
Christianization of society. He denounced the
apostasy of the conciliary Rome. He denounced
the mistakes and their perpetrators, whatever
they are. He defended priests and the faithful
against modernist contagion. He was exposed
to invalid but infamous excommunication. He did
not back down in France's defense against
Muslim danger. He protected us against the
accordist temptation of Dom Gérard. He was, in
a word, like the bishops of yesteryear: the
defender of Christianity and the foundation of
Christianity which is faith. He was the man of
theological virtues, defending our faith and all
virtues.
What about Bishop Fellay? Did he continue
Bishop Lefebvre's actions? No. In words and
deeds, Bishop Fellay moved away from Bishop
Lefebvre.
With regard to religious freedom, he minimized
the seriousness of what the Council had said.
He did not tell the popes what Bishop Lefebvre
had said. He did not attack mistakes like Bishop
Lefebvre. He did not talk about the two churches
like Bishop Lefebvre. He did not clearly
distinguish the official Church from the Catholic
Church, but spoke of a "concrete Church",
confusing the faithful and even priests.
What is this concrete church? Do we have to be
in this church? We are in the Catholic Church.