Monthly archives: October, 2016

Fallen Soldier: Prayers Requested

The following comes from “SoldierofCTK” on the ABLF3.com forum here:
http://ablf3.com/threads/fr-voigts-mother-passed-away.714/#post-4423 





(With Fr. Voigt’s permission and to increase the number of prayers offered for the peaceful repose of Fr.’s mother, who passed away last week, I wanted to post this email: )


Dear Friends,

With a tear in my eye and sorrow in my heart I wish to request your prayers for the soul of my mother, Mrs. Leonard Voigt or commonly known as Betty. She suffered a stroke eight months ago and by God gracious plan we were able to visit and express our love for her all these months until Friday, Oct. 28th at 3:15 p.m. Now she stands before the judgment seat of the Lamb of God and we cover her with the Blood of that Merciful Lamb with the sure hope of a merciful judgment. As a true mother she sacrificed all for her eleven children and gave many a holy hour for the salvation of their souls. As I reflect upon her life I came up with a simple way to recall all that she has done. Her beautiful name: B E T T Y

B For my mother her Baptism was the key to her actions for she was incorporated in the Body and Blood of our Savior Jesus Christ. She was anointed with the Chrism of salvation and heaven was the one desire of her heart. That baptism sacrament influenced the gift she gave of prayer (especially the rosary). Her dedication to our Lady was evident in the rosary she prayed daily and her love of the holy scapular which she wore in honor of our Blessed Mother.

E Daily my mother went to the church in order to assist at holy mass and receive the treasure beyond price: the Holy Eucharist. Eucharist meant the reality of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Because of her love for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament she offered a holy hour each week on Monday at 10:00 a.m. She was united with my father in the Nocturnal Adoration Society and monthly took their turn in making reparation before the Exposition of the Eucharist.

T She trusted in our Lord and our Lady to take care of the children which she bore. She realized that they were all gifts from God and that Our Lady would have to bring them home. Her trust expressed the deep faith which she lived by.

T She was tested in so many ways but her final agony was the unfolding of the mystery of the Sorrowful Mother Mary. My mother was always the one to do for the other. Now she had to accept the humiliation of being cared for by others. Her children were around her in this agony. As much as she wished to communicate with them she could not. I received her last words on the earth: “Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I love you.” Her mind was clear but her tongue was slow.

Y My mother loved the youth and with eleven kids there was plenty of youthful activity throughout her life. Even within a few weeks of her death she loved seeing the great grandchildren. Her eyes would light up with the antiques of the little ones. “Unless you become like a little child you shall not enter the kingdom of God.”

I believe that my mother is a good example of the faithful wife who never showed any anger towards my father, who treasured his wonderful wife all the days of his life in the world. Now both are in God’s hands and I am at peace with their souls. May God grant them both a place in the kingdom. Thank you for your prayers and especially for rosaries and holy masses offered for their souls.

In the hearts of Jesus, Mary and Joseph,

Fr. Richard Voigt


Happy Feast of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King!

“Scriptum est enim: Vivo ego, dicit Dominus, quoniam mihi flectetur omne genu”
(Romans 14:11)




“Vatican II stipulates first of all that religious liberty must be confined within “just limits,” (Dignitatis Humanae, 1) according to the juridical rules . . . consistent with the objective moral order, which are required in order effectively to safeguard the rights of all … authentic public peace… as well as the protection due to public morality. (Dignitatis Humanae, 7)” That is all very reasonable, but leaves aside the essential question, which is this: Does not the State have the duty, and therefore the right, to safeguard the religious unity of the citizens in the true religion and to protect the Catholic souls against scandal and the propagation of religious error and, for these reasons only, to limit the practice of the false cults, even to prohibit them if need be?

This is why it must be said that the “limits” fixed by the Council onto religious liberty are only dust in the eyes, concealing the radical defect from which they suffer and which is not to take into consideration the difference between truth and error! Against all justice they pretend to attribute the same right to the true religion and to the false ones, and they then strive artificially to limit the damages by barriers, which are far from satisfying the requirements of Catholic doctrine. I would readily compare “the limits” of religious liberty to the security guardrails on the highways, which serve to contain the swervings of the vehicles whose drivers have lost control. In the very first place, it would still be a question of reminding the drivers of their duty to follow the traffic laws!” 
(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, “They Have Uncrowned Him,” pp.204-205)

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/The-Archbishops-Judgement.htm 

The Charitable Anathema: Bishop Thomas Aquinas Refuses “Invitation” from Boston



On (or about) October 15, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko “invited” His Excellency, Bishop Thomas Aquinas to visit Boston, KY.


Bishop Thomas Aquinas made the following reply:

Date: Mon. 17 Oct. 2016
Dear Father,
I think we are in the same situation than in the beginning of the year when I was obliged to say to you not coming to Santa Cruz if you didn’t do something as reparation about what you said towards Bishops of resistance. I heard you or Fr. Hewko or both called Bishop Williamson heretic. How can we speak with you if you say things like this one? I hope you change your positions as to be able to meet you.
May God make you see what is wrong in your behavior.
+Thomas Aquinas

To this reply, Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko made this incredible response:

Date: 18 October 2016
My Lord, your Excellency,
You refuse to speak to us because you heard that someone said that they heard that we said “Bishop Williamson is a heretic.” Hence, those souls who are dying in need of Extreme Unction may not be anointed by Frs. JP and Hewko since these priests may have spoken offensively about Bishop Williamson. Offending the good name of Bishop Williamson means they may not receive the Sacraments of the Church before death.
Seminarians studying for Priesthood may not be ordained since their rector is perceived to be too critical of Bishop Williamson. Is the good bishop’s name worth more than the Name of the Lord God, Creator of us all?
Our more than 2000 sheep are unworthy of Sacraments also since they may not honor his Episcopal name sufficiently?
You are a Bishop and will soon meet your Creator and Lord at the Judgement. Will you have to repeat the words of Cardinal Wolsey, the Faithful servant of Henry VIII of England? He said, “If only I had served my God half as well as I served my King.” You are indeed a loyal servant of Bishop Williamson, and you are proving it by your worthy actions of defending him by doing whatever is in your power to destroy his perceived enemies.
Did you not tell souls to avoid Fr. Cardozo Masses and sacraments for the same reason?
Did you not also encourage the Columbians to expel Fr. Raphael and his little Monastery for the same reasons?
You have been a zealous Bishop defending the honor of the Lord of Broadstairs.
I met several times before a Monk – Dom Tomas Aquino who served the Lord of Heaven. What happened to him? Whence has he gone?
Did Archbishop Lefebvre (or any other Catholic Bishop) refuse sacraments, etc. to anyone who called him by bad names?
Fr. Hewko and myself, for the record, have never called Bishop Williamson a Heretic anyway.
Before you were consecrated you did three evil condemnable acts.

1. You wrote two letters about the New Mass supporting Bishop Williamson’s statements on the New Mass.
2. You told souls to reject Fr. Cardozo because of his critical remarks against Bishop Williamson.
3. You wrote a letter of rejection against myself and Fr. Hewko forbidding us to attend your Consecration or even to visit afterwards. Was this the price you had to pay to receive purple and a cross about your chest?
I was told before of a bad monk in Brazil who did not follow the Rule of St. Benedict, who was mentally ill in need of being replaced. No young man should be allowed to enter his monastery etc. I did not believe them. After meeting you in Silver City then in Brazil all doubts were removed.
You should be familiar with being a victim of Calumny and hence owe, in justice, to give Fr. Hewko and I a fair hearing.
In your visit to the USA and Canada there are about 1000 or more souls who won’t see you since they are with Boston, KY. They are being left orphans by you and Bishop Faure, mere suffragan bishops of Bishop Williamson – and why?…Because they hold on to the Faith handed down by their Fathers especially Archbishop Lefebvre, who rejected the New Mass and the New Church or order to remain faithful to “Eternal Rome.” Eternal Rome is still here on earth now in all souls that remain at this moment Faithful to Her.
I do not lightly criticize you, but with a heavy hope that your conscience will remember former times when it served God rather than a man. Can you really say that you now are serving God?
A Moral Theology reminder. No priest may refuse Sacraments or priestly help to anyone who attacks his person or makes accusation against himself. Even if we had called BPW or thyself “heretic” this would not be an excuse before God to refuse any priestly help. This is the familiar teaching of the Gospel that even pagans know, “do good to those who hate you” etc. Therefore your reason to refuse us has no foundation in Christ or His Holy Gospel.
If, however, Fr. Hewko and I are preachers of Heresy or grave errors then as a bishop of the Church you must correct us by both pointing out our errors (allowing a defense of course) and teaching the correct way.
God bless you Excellency, we can still come to see you if you allow us, as discreetly or publicly as you wish.
In Christ our King and King of all creation,
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
Fr. David Hewko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdFknTrE5iE 


Commentary:

So Fr. Pfeiffer wants to portray himself as the victim here: Bishop Thomas Aquinas’s refusal is totally unreasonable, because contrary to whatever he may have heard, Fr. Pfeiffer never called Bishop Williamson a heretic.

But Fr. Pfeiffer must have an exceedingly short memory, because on one of the forums loyal to him, they place a very great emphasis on this quote from one of his recent sermons (which at the time of the above correspondence was only 2 weeks old!):

“He [Bishop Williamson] says, now, the new Mass has true in it and the new Mass has false in it; the new Mass has good in it, and the new Mass has bad in it. Now the bad is dangerous, but the good and the true benefit the soul.

And this is a teaching which is condemned by Our Holy Mother the Church. It is the foundation of the heresy of ecumenism.”

Can Fr. Pfeiffer explain how this quote is compatible with his denial to Bishop Thomas Aquinas (above) that “Fr. Hewko and myself, for the record, have never called Bishop Williamson a Heretic anyway?”


Note also the insincerity which Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko must have secretly harbored within themselves when they requested a visit from Bishop Thomas Aquinas: 

Upon receiving the bishop’s refusal (which they surely anticipated), they unleash a litany of complaints which obviously would have still been present even had Bishop Thomas Aquinas accepted the invitation.

But if they had all these complaints built up within them, and were so obviously opposed to the bishop to whom they feigned an invitation, then what was the true purpose of the invitation in the first place?

It was surely this: A political move to portray Boston -once again- as the innocent victim of episcopal prejudice for its “unwavering fidelity” to the positions of Archbishop Lefebvre!

In my opinion, such theatrics are not necessary for Fr. Pfeiffer:

If his dupes have stuck with him through a fake bishop, perpetual incoherence, doctrinal errors (e.g., No grace at NOM Communions; communication in sacris to attend SSPX Masses; etc.), alienation from all three bishops, Pablo, and all the rest, I would say productions like this latest episode are not necessary to hold his ground.

Anyone with common sense deserted Fr. Pfeiffer long ago; those who remain cannot be helped.


As for the particular complaints made against Bishop Thomas Aquinas, let’s “unpack” them:

        “Hence, those souls who are dying in need of Extreme Unction may not be anointed by Frs. JP and Hewko since these priests may have spoken offensively about Bishop Williamson. Offending the good name of Bishop Williamson means they may not receive the Sacraments of the Church before death.

Response:

Presuming the implication is accurate (i.e., the refusal of holy oils), I would see in it a charitable punishment, intended to bring you (and your dupes) back to your senses.  Argumentation has very obviously failed to make any headway with you.  What recourse is left?  In fact, with all these grievances, why do you even request them from the three bishops?  Why not go get holy oils from Mr. Moran (about whose valid and Catholic episcopacy you continue to maintain that you have no doubts)?


        “Seminarians studying for Priesthood may not be ordained since their rector is perceived to be too critical of Bishop Williamson. Is the good bishop’s name worth more than the Name of the Lord God, Creator of us all?

Response:

Is it that, or, is it because your hostel (aka “seminary”) was founded in direct disobedience to Bishop Williamson?  He told you (in the presence of Fr. Chazal) that he did not trust you to be a rector, but who was he to say such a thing, eh?

And of course, the shotty, irregular so-called formation could have nothing to do with it either, right?

In your mind, those who come to Boston have a right to be ordained!  When has the Church ever taught such a thing?  If the bishops don’t call your seminarians (and it is always the bishops through which God calls men to the priesthood), it is Providence telling you they are not fit.


        “Our more than 2000 sheep are unworthy of Sacraments also since they may not honor his Episcopal name sufficiently?

Response:

What’s all this sudden talk about the importance of receiving the sacraments, when for years, you have inculcated within your dupes an almost contempt for same? 


        “You are a Bishop and will soon meet your Creator and Lord at the Judgement. Will you have to repeat the words of Cardinal Wolsey, the Faithful servant of Henry VIII of England? He said, “If only I had served my God half as well as I served my King.” You are indeed a loyal servant of Bishop Williamson, and you are proving it by your worthy actions of defending him by doing whatever is in your power to destroy his perceived enemies.

Response:

Notice that charitable punishments intended to get Fr. Pfeiffer to return to reason are perceived by him as infidelity and treachery.

What can you do for such a one except pray?


        “Did you not tell souls to avoid Fr. Cardozo Masses and sacraments for the same reason?

Response:

Were you not in Canada a couple years ago explaining why “non una cum” priests ought to be avoided because of their error?  Will you deny Fr. Cardozo is a non-una cum priest via mental reservation that he says “una cum Petrus?”  Does this not evince his sedevacantism?  If not, can you please produce an affirmative statement from Fr. Cardozo that he accepts Francis as Pope?



        “Did you not also encourage the Columbians to expel Fr. Raphael and his little Monastery for the same reasons?”

Response:

I happen to know there is quite a bit more to this story (perhaps you do as well?), but pretending what you just said were true, would you not now just have committed a serious detraction before the whole world?

Does that not bother you?


        “You have been a zealous Bishop defending the honor of the Lord of Broadstairs.

Response:

You have been an equally zealous priest, tearing it down.



        “I met several times before a Monk – Dom Tomas Aquino who served the Lord of Heaven. What happened to him? Whence has he gone?

Response:

Rather, you might ask yourself those same questions.



         “Did Archbishop Lefebvre (or any other Catholic Bishop) refuse sacraments, etc. to anyone who called him by bad names?

Response:

I thought you said you didn’t call Bishop Williamson a heretic.  Were there other bad names you called him?

Aside from that, how many people do you know who, thinking Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic, nevertheless sought sacraments from him?

That kind of incoherence is found only in Boston.


“You wrote a letter of rejection against myself and Fr. Hewko forbidding us to attend your Consecration or even to visit afterwards. Was this the price you had to pay to receive purple and a cross about your chest?

Response:

And apparently that letter, rather than causing you to rethink your positions, attitudes, and repent, has instead caused you to increase your obstinacy?



“I was told before of a bad monk in Brazil who did not follow the Rule of St. Benedict, who was mentally ill in need of being replaced. No young man should be allowed to enter his monastery etc. I did not believe them. After meeting you in Silver City then in Brazil all doubts were removed.
You should be familiar with being a victim of Calumny and hence owe, in justice, to give Fr. Hewko and I a fair hearing.”

Response:

A fair hearing?  You mean like setting up some Brazilian-Boston “doctrinal discussions” (a la Rome/SSPX)?  You think Bishop Thomas Aquinas doesn’t know what your positions are (with a new YouTube sermon/conference every 2 days)? 

Your positions ARE the problem.


“In your visit to the USA and Canada there are about 1000 or more souls who won’t see you since they are with Boston, KY. They are being left orphans by you and Bishop Faure, mere suffragan bishops of Bishop Williamson – and why?…Because they hold on to the Faith handed down by their Fathers especially Archbishop Lefebvre, who rejected the New Mass and the New Church or order to remain faithful to “Eternal Rome.” Eternal Rome is still here on earth now in all souls that remain at this moment Faithful to Her.

Response:

If 1,000 souls won’t see Bishop Thomas Aquinas because they are with Boston, that is their choice. 

How is the bishop to blame for it?

They are not being left orphans by the bishops, but stupidly choosing you over them.

That also is their choice.

Note also the insinuation that Bishop Thomas Aquinas does not reject the new Mass or the conciliar church, simply because (like all approved theologians before him) he makes distinctions which the dupes are taught to see as compromises.


“I do not lightly criticize you, but with a heavy hope that your conscience will remember former times when it served God rather than a man. Can you really say that you now are serving God?
A Moral Theology reminder. No priest may refuse Sacraments or priestly help to anyone who attacks his person or makes accusation against himself. Even if we had called BPW or thyself “heretic” this would not be an excuse before God to refuse any priestly help. This is the familiar teaching of the Gospel that even pagans know, “do good to those who hate you” etc. Therefore your reason to refuse us has no foundation in Christ or His Holy Gospel.”

Response:

Why not put your money where your mouth is, and go get your “sacraments” from “Archbishop” Ambrose?

If you do, could you also please make another YouTube video showing the dupes receiving those “sacraments?”


“If, however, Fr. Hewko and I are preachers of Heresy or grave errors then as a bishop of the Church you must correct us by both pointing out our errors (allowing a defense of course) and teaching the correct way.

Response:

This very letter references precisely two such attempts (e.g., The articles you criticize the bishop for writing regarding good fruits), which fell on deaf ears. 

Since when has argumentation ever made any headway with you?

And what happens when someone points out your errors?  You go twice as far in the opposite direction (e.g., You now declare no grace passes to well-disposed communicants at a valid Novus Ordo Mass, which is proximate to heresy per Trent).



Conclusion:

The invitation by Boston was insincere, in that the response of Bishop Thomas Aquinas was not only foreseeable, but was in fact foreseen in Boston.  That it was extended at all, therefore, was really just posturing to justify making public the complaints and grievances which comprise the response of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko.  In doing so, Fr. Pfeiffer hoped to portray Boston as being punished for it’s alleged “fidelity” to Archbishop Lefebvre, with the effect of tightening the loyalty of the dupes, and securing his ground against further defections.  In this he has probably succeeded, but only at the expense of further isolation (were it possible), and guaranteeing that there is no future at all in Boston.








Did Archbishop Lefebvre Believe No Grace Flowed from Valid Novus Ordo Communions?
(Part II)



Objection: But what about the quote of Archbishop Lefebvre from “Open Letter to Confused Catholics?”

Response:

      The quote in question is this:

        “It is all wasted because the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, desecrated as it is, no longer confers grace and no longer transmits it.”[1]

      Note firstly, that it is only by excising this quote from context, and presenting it to the world in a univocal sense, that the impression of Archbishop Lefebvre declaring all Novus Ordo Masses to be graceless is maintained. 

      But look what happens when we reinsert the quote into the context within which those words appear:

        “In Poitiers on Holy Thursday the same year, a big spectacular celebration consisted of the indiscriminate consecration of loaves and jugs of wine upon the tables from which everyone came and helped himself.

Concerts of secular music held in churches are now generalized. Places of worship are even made available for rock music events, with all the excesses that these habitually involve. Some churches and cathedrals have been given over to debauchery, drugs and filth of all kinds, and it is not the local clergy who have then performed ceremonies of expiation but groups of the faithful rightly disgusted by these scandals. How can the bishops and priests who have encouraged these things not fear to bring down divine punishment upon themselves and their people? It is already apparent in the fruitlessness of their work. It is all wasted because the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, desecrated as it is, no longer confers grace and no longer transmits it. The contempt for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the most flagrant sign by which the new mentality, no longer Catholic, expresses itself. Even without going as far as the rowdy excesses I have just mentioned, this is noticeable every day. The Council of Trent explained without any possible doubt that Our Lord is present in the smallest particles of the consecrated bread. What are we to think then of Communion in the hand? When a Communion plate is used, even if the Communions are few in number, there are always particles remaining. In consequence, the particles now remain in the communicant’s hands. The faith of many is shaken by this, especially that of children.”[2]


      Thus, by providing context, it becomes quite obvious that the Archbishop’s comments pertain specifically to the outrageous Masses he has just described as desecrations (i.e., Masses with drug use, rock and roll concerts, and “filth of all kinds”), and not to all Novus Ordo Masses.

        But to snatch the Archbishop’s words from context, and present them to the world in a univocal sense, depicting them as the Archbishop’s denial of the transmission of sanctifying grace to well-disposed communicants at all valid Novus Ordo Masses is plainly an unjust, expansionary application of the Archbishop’s actual words.





[1]Lefebvre, Archbishop Marcel “Open Letter to Confused Catholics,” p. 19 (Angelus Press, 1986).

Did Archbishop Lefebvre Believe No Grace Flowed from Valid Novus Ordo Communions?
(Part I)


Objection: But Archbishop Lefebvre said the New Mass Doesn’t Give Grace!

Response:

This is the quote presented by the adversaries of Bishop Williamson, desirous of proving that Archbishop Lefebvre taught that no grace flowed from valid Novus Ordo Masses (and consequently, that His Excellency erred when he declared during his June 28, 2015 conference in Mahopac, New York that spiritual nourishment could, in certain circumstances, still be found there):

“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “A Bishop Speaks,” p. 115-116. Angelus Press, 2007).

Does this passage refute Bishop Williamson’s comment (and consequently, the Catechetical Refutation, which defends it)?

No.

There are at least four distinct arguments which preclude giving this passage the reading Bishop Williamson’s opponents would rend from it:

1) Archbishop Lefebvre is probably discussing invalid Masses in the passage cited.

The paragraph immediately prior to the quote provided ends with these two sentences:

“It is strictly necessary that our sacrifice of the Mass be a true sacrifice in order that we may keep our priestly holiness. In the same measure as our sacrifice of the Mass vanishes, in just that measure we lose the source of our sacerdotal holiness.” (p. 115)

Then follows the quote excerpted above, in which is contained another suggestion that what is being discussed are invalid Masses:

“…because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”

Hence the conclusion:

“Profaned as it is [i.e., invalid?], it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.”

In all probability, therefore, Archbishop Lefebvre is most likely speaking of invalid Novus Ordo Masses.   Concluding otherwise would be quite a stretch, for the reasons which follow.

2) Supposing the Archbishop really was speaking about valid Novus Ordo Masses

The contention made in the Catechetical Refutation is that, following upon the Council of Trent (Session 7, Canons 6-8):

As “it is infallibly certain that those who attend a valid Novus Ordo, and receive Communion in the state of grace, have received an increase of sanctifying grace (which is the “spiritual nourishment” par excellence), there can be no question as to the doctrinal correctness of Bishop Williamson’s comment.” (Catechetical Refutation, #7)

If the statement by Archbishop Lefebvre above was made with reference to valid Novus Ordo Masses, would it disprove this contention?

No.

Why?

Because the Novus Ordo must be considered under two aspects:

1) The new Mass as Sacrament (i.e., Does the sacrament transmit grace);

2) The new Mass as a Rite of Sacrifice (i.e., Does the Rite transmit grace).

This distinction is contained and affirmed in every approved pre-Vatican II manual of sacramental theology, and in English language sources, the following is contained in Msgr. Pohle’s  Dogmatic Theology IX. The Sacraments, Vol. 2: The Holy Eucharist (p. 272):

Sacrament and Sacrifice are such thoroughly different things that some theologians treat the Mass separately in an entirely different connection.

The Mass is indeed something essentially different from the Eucharist as a Sacrament. Wyclif, Luther, and other heretics retained the latter but repudiated the former.

A Sacrament serves primarily for the sanctification of souls, whereas a Sacrifice has for its object to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is man, of the other, God“​


Yet, the Catechetical Refutation only discusses the NOM as sacrament. I explained in the Refutation (#8) that:

“The Canons of the Council of Trent from Session VII quoted above dealt with all the sacraments in general, and definitively declared how grace works through them (i.e., The Council was not here considering the sacrament of Holy Communion specifically, much less any particular Rite of Mass); this latter discussion was reserved to Session XXII.”

Yet in the quote above, the Archbishop is clearly discussing the new Rite of Mass, not the sacrament of Holy Communion. That is to say, the Archbishop is discussing whether the profaned Rite of sacrifice gives grace, not the sacrament of Holy Communion (and keeping in mind that the Archbishop is probably speaking of an invalid profaned Rite/Novus Ordo).

But the discussion of whether or not a profaned (I will go even further, and say an illicit and illegitimate) rite transmits grace is not a subject the Catechetical Refutation enters into, precisely because the question is unanswerable:

There are no approved traditional Catholic sources to have ever considered the question of an illicitly and/or illegitimately promulgated Rite approved for use in the Catholic Church, precisely because such a thing was, before the Council, inconceivable. The contention made in the Catechetical Refutation, per Trent, is that the new Mass as a valid sacrament infallibly transmits an increase of sanctifying grace to well-disposed communicants, and therefore justifies Bishop Williamson’s contention.

3) Other sources on the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in the early 1970’s.

In Bishop Tissier’s “Biography” of Archbishop Lefebvre, he quotes the Archbishop as advising:

“Make every effort to have the Mass of St. Pius V, but if it is impossible to find one within 40 kilometers and if there is a pius priest who says the New Mass in as traditional a way as possible, it is good for you to assist at it to fulfill your Sunday obligation.” (p. 463)

Unfortunately, though Bishop Tissier quotes the Archbishop, he does not provide a date for this quote. But as it is sandwiched between citations from 1971, 1974, and 1975,. it therefore evinces the Archbishop’s thought during the same period as the quote taken from “A Bishop Speaks” in 1972.

What can be gleaned from the quote from the Biography?

-Archbishop Lefebvre was aware that the precept of the Church was based on the Commandment; that keeping holy the Lord’s day was satisfied minimally by Mass attendance; that attendance at a “reverent” Novus Ordo met this minimal standard.

-The wording is not that of a begrudging permission or toleration, but of a positive endorsement: “it is good for you to assist at it.”

Is this position consistent with the reading the bishop’s adversaries would give to the quote from “A Bishop Speaks” (i.e., That ignorant/well disposed Novus Ordo communicants are not receiving the transmission of sanctifying grace from the sacrament)?

If so, then why did Archbishop Lefebvre, at approximately the same period in time, say it was good to assist at it?

And if it was both offensive to God, and imparted no grace, then how could he say it fulfilled the Sunday obligation (which is based on the Precept to keep holy the Lord’s day)?

Giving the quote the reading Bishop Williamson’s opponents ascribe to it makes of Archbishop Lefebvre an ultra-legalistic Pharisee (i.e., It makes him say that, despite the Novus Ordo being offensive to God, and worthless -or even harmful- to the faithful, nevertheless it is good to attend it because we have a Sunday obligation to fulfill).

4) The Maxim: “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.”


Notice that in rending their interpretation of Archbishop Lefebvre’s words as declaring that even ignorant, well-disposed communicants receive no sanctifying grace from valid Novus Ordo communions, they are implicitly condemning the Archbishop of a logical fallacy: 

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur” (“That which is offered without proof, can be dismissed without proof”).


In other words, the quote they hold out contains no supporting rationale at all to defend the assertion they mistakenly believe the Archbishop to be making.  

As such, their argument represents nothing more than an unsupported assertion (presumably an argument from authority, which St. Thomas Aquinas teaches is the weakest form of proof).

And while admitting that Archbishop Lefebvre’s words certainly carry weighty authority, in fact misconstruing his words to create such an argument means there really is no argument from authority at all:


They have made out the Archbishop to have offered a most severe judgment, without offering any support for it!  

Is that the Archbishop Lefebvre we know?

Is it not much more probable that:

A) Archbishop Lefebvre was probably discussing invalid Novus Ordo Masses;

B) Most importantly, Archbishop Lefebvre was speaking about the Rite of Sacrifice, and not the Sacrament [whereas my Refutation at #7-8 was speaking about the sacrament, not the Rite];

C) The reading Bishop Williamson’s opponents would give to the quote is incongruent with other writings of the Archbishop on the subject at roughly the same time period (which would unwittingly impute incoherence to Archbishop Lefebvre);

D) Neither will you find Archbishop Lefebvre making this argument anywhere else (least of all in the quote from “Open Letter to Confused Catholics,” which will be addressed elsewhere);

E) Neither does the “Ottaviani Intervention” make this argument (the steering committee of which was directed by Archbishop Lefebvre). Yet, if the Archbishop really believed well-disposed communicants at the Novus Ordo did not receive grace from their Communions, one would have expected that argument or position to be have been frequently reflected in his sermons, conferences, writings, and by the SSPX….which it is not.

F) Neither is the claim that no grace is received by well disposed communicants at a valid Novus Ordo made in Campos’ famous “62 Reasons to Avoid the New Mass,” yet one would have expected such a reason to rank highly among the other 62 were it true.

But even if you wanted to dismiss all that, and hold the misconstrued quotation out on it’s own, you would still run into the issue of logical fallacy: 


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur” (“That which is offered without proof, can be dismissed without proof”).

Conclusion:

For all the reasons adduced above, the evidence is hugely against the interpretation Bishop Williamson’s opponents would give the quote from “A Bishop Speaks.”

It would have been quite a remarkable and momentous thing in Tradition for Archbishop Lefebvre to have stated that well-disposed communicants do not receive the transmission of sanctifying grace at a valid Novus Ordo Mass.

The quote provided from Archbishop Lefebvre at the beginning of this post does not make this argument.  It is instead addressing the Novus Ordo as a Rite, not as a sacrament (and probably even here, only in the context of invalid Novus Ordo Masses).

As such, this quote neither addresses nor refutes points #7-8 of the Catechetical Refutation. The only way to conclude otherwise, is to dispute the legitimacy of the distinction between sacrament and sacrifice (a distinction insisted upon by all approved traditional Catholic theologians).


Eleison Comments #484: Iron Rations (Commentary Follows)



When Catholic institutions fall to bits,

The priests must help the home to take the hits.

In military affairs, it is normal for generals and soldiers alike to have in mind rather the last war than the one they are now fighting. Who imagined trench warfare before World War I? Yet by World War II the inter-war development of tanks had made trenches obsolete. Similarly in religious affairs. The 21st is no longer the 20th century. Surely Resistant Catholics since 2012 are unwise to be hoping for anything like the establishment and expansion of the Society of St Pius X in the last century. For example, from two admirable Resistants of today come a general and a particular lament, neither perhaps altogether wise . . .

The general lament is that the “Resistance” is falling apart rather than making headway. These “Comments” often put inverted commas around the word “Resistance,” precisely to suggest that the Catholic resistance to the Conciliarisation of the SSPX is not yet any kind of organisation but rather a vague movement with a precise aim, to save the Catholic Faith, but with as yet little structure to help it to do so. However, let Resistants take heart, because while man proposes, God disposes, so that what can look like a human failure may not be a failure from the standpoint of Almighty God.

Thus in the 1970’s Archbishop Lefebvre proposed to rally half a dozen Catholic bishops so as to throw up a real roadblock in the way of the Conciliarists then destroying the Church, but God disposed differently. In this purpose of his the Archbishop would fail, but in trying he would succeed in building a worldwide treasure-house to safeguard the treasures of the Church’s doctrine, Mass and priesthood for better times. Similarly now there are Resistants proposing to build a replacement for the endangered SSPX, and their apparent weakness (at least up till now) may suggest that any such large-scale replacement is not in the plans or dispositions of Almighty God. However, in trying, Resistants are ensuring (at least for now) the survival of the Catholic Faith, which is certainly a disposition of Providence.

The particular lament is that if only the “Resistance” had schools, many SSPX parents would swell the ranks of the “Resistance” as they cannot now do, because their children would immediately be thrown out of the SSPX schools to which there is presently no decent alternative. But again, we are fighting for the Faith in the 21st, not in the 20thcentury. Back in the 1980’s there were still enough like-minded Catholic parents and teachers and priests to form that triangular frame within which the children almost have to grow up straight. But today? Today one learns of an SSPX boys’ school that has been in serious difficulties because of an outbreak within its walls of that sin against nature which cries to Heaven for vengeance. But what walls can stop adolescents from getting to know of that sin’s glorification among the mass of their country’s male adults, and of a new word invented to condemn the new vice of its condemnation – “homophobia”? And since when are adolescents not to imitate their adults? In fact, how can anyone run a boys’ school since the invention of the Internet, with pocket access to it? Are Catholic institutions still possible?

In today’s religious war, surely the order of the day is iron rations, meaning the soldiers’ strict necessary for survival, here to keep the Faith. This war must be won in the home, or it will be lost. God gives to parents a natural power to form their children that overwhelms by, say, five to two the power of any institution to deform them, but only as long as parents take hold of their power. A small rudder can steer a big ship, but not if the steersman lets go of it. If parents let go of their children, they cannot blame the world for steering them to Hell. And if any parents have wanted SSPX schools to qualify their children for the world rather than for Heaven, may not here be one important reason why the SSPX has slidden?

Kyrie eleison.


Commentary:

1) I think the jury is still out on whether or not the Resistance will be able to emulate another international society along the lines of the SSPX.  Certainly the framework for precisely such a structure was recently canonically erected in Bishop Faure’s SAJM.  The main obstacle, then, seems to be these: A) The lack of interest among current Resistance priests, many of whom seem to like their newfound autonomy (liberalism); B) The quality of young men, raised in the poisonous atmosphere of the post-conciliar world.

2) As regards the preference for autonomy among former SSPX priests, I think they need to reflect, and ask themselves: “I was once part of a formal congregation.  I left for reasons I attributed to liberalism.  I became independent because there was no canonically erected alternative.  But now there is.  How then do I justify my continued independence?”

3) As regards the quality of young men entering the Resistance seminaries, tainted as we all are by the post-conciliar world, I cannot speak with much first-hand knowledge.  I do know one seminarian in Avrille quite well, and have a very favorable opinion of him.  Another I know only through correspondence on ABLF3.com, but he also favorably impresses me.  Certainly, the pool of acceptable material continues to diminish, but I think our Lord continues to allow them to find their way to the seminary, and I believe this to be a cause of hope.

4) The seminary itself, staffed as it is by the Avrille Dominicans and others, provides a solid formation, so that the quality of formation is not at issue.  And over time, the organic growth from ordinations (coupled with defections from the SSPX after the deal is signed) will gradually improve today’s abysmal situation.

5) I agree with Bishop Williamson that, before the institution of the seminary in Avrille (and expecially the canonical erection of the SAJM), the outlook was bleak.  But the three most important pieces (bishops, seminary, and congregation) are now in place to finally begin building, rather than simply maintaining.

6) Perhaps His Excellency will be proven right, and the enterprise will be foiled.  But if so, at least the attempt to restore a sense of normalcy, hope, and restoration of Tradition will not be aborted before it is ever attempted.  We will put in the effort, and God will decide whether we are to succeed or fail.

7) Other promising signs of restoration would include two new Resistance schools in the United Stated, founded by Fr. Zendejas.  I don’t know how he does it, but they are in operation (one in the Houston, Texas area, and I believe the other somewhere near Danbury, CT?).  Lord willing, the parents who have made these enterprises possible will not fall victim to the (correct) diagnosis Bishop Williamson cites above, and have retained enough Catholic common sense to pass on to their children, to protect and insulate them from the pollution of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

8) His Excellency says, “This war must be won in the home, or it will be lost. God gives to parents a natural power to form their children that overwhelms by, say, five to two the power of any institution to deform them, but only as long as parents take hold of their power. A small rudder can steer a big ship, but not if the steersman lets go of it. If parents let go of their children, they cannot blame the world for steering them to Hell. And if any parents have wanted SSPX schools to qualify their children for the world rather than for Heaven, may not here be one important reason why the SSPX has slidden?”

I could not agree more.

But presuming parents are doing their duty in this regard, then everything is possible…including the restoration and resurgence of Tradition.





The SSPX and Female “Doctors” of the Church

In the history of the Catholic Church, one will not find such a thing as a female “Doctor of the Church.”

As Fr. Peter Scott (SSPX) once explained, such a designation was a post-conciliar novelty, because:

“Liturgically they are not Confessors but Virgins, nor can they be treated as Confessors, for the public teaching of the Faith is not something that can be delegated to women, according to St. Paul: “Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church” (I Cor. 14:34, 35).”
http://ablf3.com/threads/sspx-accepts-female-doctors-of-the-church.669/

In the same article, Fr. Scott explained that:

“However, we must be aware that we are not using this term in the same way as it is used to indicate Doctors who are Confessors, whether Pontiffs or not. When applied to a Doctor who is a Virgin it takes on an analogical and quite different sense to that which it has for a Doctor who is a Confessor. These holy Virgins taught despite themselves, moved by divine inspiration, without having any pretense of having the public function of doing so. Furthermore, these Doctor Virgins can clearly not be assimilated to Doctor Confessors in the texts of the Liturgy. However, it is in the liturgical offices that the practical consequences of the title of “Doctor” are most felt, hence the bizarreness of Doctor Virgins, for whom there is no place [propers] in the traditional Mass.”

Yet here on the official SSPX French District website, we have St. Therese listed on the liturgical calendar as Doctor of the Church:

http://laportelatine.org/accueil/Ordo/ordo.php
[​IMG]

And switching to the US District website, we find this drive-by article, which makes none of the careful distinctions of Fr. Peter Scott and the SSPX of yesteryear:

“St. Teresa has been highly revered in the Catholic Church ever since. In 1622, she was canonized by Pope Gregory XV at the same time as St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Francis Xavier. In 1817, St. Teresa was declared the patron saint of Spain. In 1970, Pope Paul VI gave St. Teresa the honorific title “Doctor of the Church.” She was the first woman in history to receive that title. Her feast day is October 15.” http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/st-teresa-avila-doctor-church

Note that none of the nuances, distinctions, caveats, or explanations contained in Fr. Peter Scott’s earlier article are contained in the article above.

Years ago, Fr. Peter Scott rhetorically asked the question why churchmen would want to expand the concept of “Doctors of the Church.”

He concluded:

“We could legitimately ask the question why clergymen would feel the need to expand the notion of a Doctor to include women, and whether there is in this desire a deep-seated influence from the feminist egalitarianism that is one aspect of the post-Conciliar revolution in the Church. It certainly seems that this is the real motivation.”
http://sspx.org/en/can-women-saints-be-doctors-church

Now the question changes a bit, and we wonder, “Why has the SSPX omitted the careful caveats, distinctions, and explanations of yesteryear? Why does it now simply recognize female “doctors” of the Church without comment, adding them to the liturgical calendar, as though there were no issue surrounding this novelty?

Could it be that Menzingen wants to signal to Rome just how much “progress” it has made, by omitting its former reservations (as it has done in so many other areas), in the hopes of facilitating the practical, bilateral accord, which will be its death warrant?


To which Church does Pope Bergoglio belong?

Roberto de Mattei
Corrispondenza Romana
October 19, 2016
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/10/de-mattei-to-which-church-does-pope.html

Two anniversaries overlap each other in 2017: the 100 years of the Fatima apparitions, occurring between May 13th and October 13th 1917, and the 500 years of Luther’s revolt, beginning in Wittenberg, Germany, October 31st 1517. However, there are two other much less discussed anniversaries which also fall next year: the 300 years of the official foundation of Freemasonry (London, June 24th 1717) and the 100 years of the Russian Revolution of October 26th 1917 (the Julian calendar in use in the Russian Empire: November 8th according to the Gregorian calendar). Yet, between the Protestant Revolution and the Communist Revolution through to the French Revolution, the daughter of Freemasonry, there runs an indissoluble red thread which Pius XII, in his famous discourse Nel contemplare of October 12th 1952, summed up in three historic phrases, corresponding to Protestantism, the Age of Enlightenment and Marxist atheism: Christ – yes, Church – no. God – yes, Christ – no. Finally the impious cry: God is dead; in fact: God has never been”.

The anarchic yearnings of Communism were already implicitly present in the first Protestant negations – observed Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira: “Whether from the point of view of Luther’s explicit formation, all of the tendencies, all of the mind-set, all of the imponderable elements of the Lutheran explosion, carried already in itself, in a very authentic and full way, even if implicit, the spirit of Voltaire and Robespierre, Marx and Lenin” (Revolution and Counter-Revolution, Sugarco, Milan, 2009, pp.61-62).

In this respect, the errors the Soviet Russia spread, starting from 1917, were a chain of ideological aberrations from Marx and Lenin which went back to the first Protestant heresiarchs. The 1517 Lutheran Revolution can therefore be considered one of the most nefarious events in the history of humanity, on par with the Masonic revolution in 1789, and the Communist one in 1917. Further, the message of Fatima, which foresaw the spreading of Communist errors throughout the world, contains implicitly the rejection of the errors of Protestantism and the French Revolution.

The start of the centenary of the Fatima apparitions on October 13th 2016 was buried under a blanket of silence. That same day, Pope Francis received in the Paul VI Audience Hall, a thousand Lutheran “pilgrims” and in the Vatican a statue of Martin Luther was honoured, as appears in the images Antonio Socci published on his Facebook page. Next October 31st, moreover, Pope Francis will go to Lund in Sweden, where he will take part in a joint Catholic-Lutheran ceremony commemorating the 500thanniversary of the Reformation. As can be read in the communiqué drawn up by the World Lutheran Federation and the Papal Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, the aim of the event is “to express the gifts of the Reform and ask forgiveness for the division perpetuated by Christians of the two traditions.”

The Valdese theologian and pastor, Paolo Ricca, involved for decades in ecumenical dialogue, voiced his satisfaction “seeing as it is the first time a Pope commemorates the Reform. This, in my opinion, constitutes a step forward with regard to the important aims that have been achieved with the Second Vatican Council, which – by including in its texts and so giving value to some fundamental principles and themes of the Reform – marked a decisive turning point in the relationships between Catholics and Protestants. By taking part in the commemoration, as the highest representative of the Catholic Church is prepared to do, means, in my view, to consider the Reform as a positive event in the history of the Church which also did some good for Catholicism. The participation at the commemoration is a gesture of great relevance also because the Pope is going to Lund, to the home of the Lutherans; as if he were one of the family. My impression is, in a way I wouldn’t know how to define, that he also feels part of that portion of Christianity born of the Reform.

According to Ricca, the main contribution offered by Pope Francis is “his effort to reinvent the papacy, that is, the search for a new and different way of understanding and living the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. This search – presuming my interpretation somewhat hits the mark – might take us a long way, since the papacy – because of the way it has been understood and lived over the last 1000 years – is one of the great obstacles to Christian Unity. It seems to me Pope Francis is moving towards a model of the papacy different to the traditional one, with respect to which the other Christian Churches might take on new positions. If it were so, this theme might be completely reconsidered in ecumenical circles.

The fact that this interview was published on October 9th by Vatican Insider, considered a semi-official Vatican site, makes one think that this interpretation of the Lund trip as well as the papal intentions, have been authorized and are agreeable to Pope Francis.

During his audience with the Lutherans on October 13th, Pope Bergoglio also said that proselytism, is “the strongest poison” against ecumenism. “The greatest reformers are the saints – he added – and the Church is always in need of reform”. These words contain simultaneously, as is frequent in his discourses, a truth and a deception. The truth is that the saints, from St Gregory VII to St. Pius X, have [indeed] been the greatest reformers. The deception consists in insinuating that the pseudo-reformers, like Luther, are to be considered saints. The statement that proselytism or the missionary spirit, is “the strongest poison against ecumenism” must, instead, be reversed: ecumenism, as it is understood today, is the greatest poison against the Church’s missionary spirit. The Saints have always been moved by this spirit, beginning with the Jesuits who landed in Brazil, the Congo and the Indies in the XVI century, while their confreres Diego Lainez, Alfonso Salmeron and Peter Canisio, at the Council of Trent, fought against the errors of Lutheranism and Calvinism.

Yet, according to Pope Francis those outside the Church do not have to be converted. At the audience on October 13th, in an off-the-cuff response to questions from some young people, he said: “I like good Lutherans a lot, Lutherans who truly follow the faith of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, I don’t like lukewarm Catholics and lukewarm Lutherans.” With another deformation in language, Pope Bergoglio calls “good Lutherans” those Protestants who do not follow the faith of Jesus Christ, but its deformation and “lukewarm Catholics” those fervent sons and daughters of the Church who reject the equalizing of the truth of the Catholic religion with the error of Lutheranism.

All of this brings us to the question: what will happen in Lund on October 31st? We know that the commemoration will include a joint celebration based on the Liturgical Catholic-Lutheran guide, Common Prayer, elaborated from the document From Conflict to Communion. The Common Catholic-Lutheran Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017, drawn-up by the Catholic-Lutheran Commission for the unity of Christians. There are those who rightly fear an “intercommunion” between Catholic and Lutherans, which would be sacrilegious, since the Lutherans do not believe in Transubstantiation. Above all, that it will be said Luther was not a heresiarch, but a reformer unjustly persecuted and that the Church has to recuperate the “gifts of the Reform”. Those who persist in considering the condemnation of Luther proper and think his followers heretics and schismatics, must be harshly criticised and excluded from the Church of Pope Francis. But then again, what Church does Jorge Mario Begoglio belong to? Translation: Contributor, Francesca Romana


Bishop Fellay’s Capitulation Conference

[NB: I originally published this post on the ABLF3.com forum here:  http://ablf3.com/threads/bishop-fellays-capitulation-conference.613/  You can check in there for some interesting follow-up posts.]


On August 24, Bishop Fellay gave a conference in Australia, of which Part 6 is available here:





A) Only a FEW of the Notable Excerpts: 

1) 3:00 – 4:05 – “In fact, Rome is offering us a new body, with a head, a bishop. This bishop, chosen, chose by the Pope. Three names, shall [be] presented by the Society, and taken in the Society. The bishop will have authority above priests, above religious who want to be members, and above faithful. All the sacraments. The faithful who belong to this body will have the strict right to receive all the sacraments from the priests of the Society.

2) 4:52 – 5:06 – “For you, no change from what you have now. The only thing will be recognition that you are Catholics.”

3) 5:25 – 6:16 – “In itself, you cannot imagine anything better than what is offered there. That such a thing, you cannot think that’s a trap. It’s NOT a trap. That is not what it is. Offering something like that can ONLY produce much good for us….[imperceptible] it will cause Tradition to spread in the Church. It’s impossible to think that such a thing could be meant by the enemy. The enemies have many other ways to crush us down.”

B) Commentary:
1) Readers of this forum may be familiar with my rebuttal of Fr. Francois Laisney’s letter of condemnation regarding the 2015 episcopal consecration of Bishop Jean Michel Faure, in which I observed:

“Unfortunately, he has basically forecasted to Rome (by these types of letters) an idea that going forward, all unapproved consecrations are not an option, or, that consecrations can only be performed with the consent of Rome. It is difficult, in the new Regime, to imagine Menzingen being willing to perform a consecration to perpetuate the SSPX without the permission of Rome. That being the case, what can clergy and laity expect from Menzingen in the future?

No bishops at all?

Bishops picked by Rome?

Those seem to be the only alternative futures for a Menzingen which has eagerly placed its head into the noose, and now pulls the loop tight.

Truly, this effort is well named “Operation Suicide.”
Time to Brush Up | Archbishop Lefebvre Forum

Well, that prognostication has just been confirmed in this excerpt of Bishop Fellay’s conference.

2) In this excerpt, Bishop Fellay presumes the clergy in his priories, and laity in his pews, share the same scruples he does (if they are scruples), as though we shared his concern about whether or not apostate Rome considers us Catholic for refusing the revolution it has promoted since Vatican II.

Perhaps he is correct.

Perhaps after 9 years of branding, and watching their leaders suddenly begin to tremble at the thought of not being considered Catholic by BXVI and Francis, they too have started to tremble.

And yet, for all that, here is what Bishop Fellay used to pretend to believe in this regard:

“Well, we absolutely don’t have the impression of “being outside of the Church.” I must say that very clearly. When Rome says, “Please come in!” we say, “We are sorry; we can’t.” Why? – Because we are already in!
SSPX Update

Apparently someone has since convinced him otherwise.

Of course, the bit about there being no change for the laity (and Gregory, this one is just for you ;)) is actually true in a way:

If you have CRIMETHINKED your way through all the compromises the SSPX clergy and faithful have ALREADY swallowed, then you would likely not find much difference going forward.

And as for those new compromises which Fr. Cottier (now cardinal) assures us are yet to come, well, has not the experience of the ICK, FSSP, La Barroux, etc taught Rome well that despite a little dust-up, you will go along not to lose that which you gave your souls to win?

3) Bishop Fellay has taken the bait, and now he wants you to take it.

Most will.

And yet, one forgets with difficulty, the messages of yesterday from Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay himself, with which we will conclude this brief post:

“That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.”
One year after the Consecrations – District of the USA

Apparently, Bishop Fellay knows better?

But if so, then why did he used to tell us this:

“This famous “excommunication” which was supposed to be the final blow from the Roman authorities against the Archbishop has been, thanks to God, our protection. They built up a wall around us which was supposed to exclude us from the Church, but this wall has been our protection, at several levels. Firstly, as it was the final blow, they have no spare bullets to use against us. Secondly, by their own action, they have terminated any ways to influence us, to command us, or to oblige us to accept the unacceptable and this, thirdly, has given us a tremendous latitude at several levels.

At the level of saving poor souls drowning everywhere, we are free of the power of local bishops over us by virtue of the “excommunication.” If you are considered “outside the Church” a bishop cannot say at the same time, “I command you to get out!

At another level – which is also amazing – this has allowed us to speak to Rome, to give arguments, to reproach the Roman authorities in such a way that would have been absolutely impossible if we had had normal relations with these authorities. In normal circumstances, it is always very difficult for a subordinate to make a remark to a superior, but especially about the pope, about cardinals, about Rome herself. The usual attitude of Rome is “be quiet,” or “obey.” It is still much like that, but now Rome is receptive to the fact that the Second Vatican Council can be discussed! This gives us some leverage.”
SSPX Update

Would it not have been more honorable to have simply gone with Fr. Bisig, instead of trying to convince others of your own apprehensions?

And what do you say about this parting advice from Archbishop Lefebvre as he left the world:

“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p 13).

Why not at least have the candor (as did Fr. Bisig) to say that you think the old man was wrong, and that you are right?

This at least would have allowed the faithful and clergy to choose.

Perhaps you did not want to afford them that luxury?


Resistance Seminary News: Letter to Friends and Benefactors (#4)

https://seminaireavrille.org/

Dear friends and benefactors,

At the meeting of the Priestly Union Marcel Lefebvre [USML] in February 2016, Bishop Williamson invited us to a more precise structure. By this structure, Bishop Williamson wanted to reassure colleagues that could leave the SSPX by the end of 2016. At the time, the organization of a structure seemed a bit premature. However, in the months that followed, its need became clearly felt to reassure teachers and seminarians who wish to be there incardinated.

The decision was made with the consent of Bishop Williamson and Bishop Miguel Ferreira da Costa (Dom Thomas Aquinas). At this announcement, Dom Thomas Aquinas and the monks sang a Te Deum in the chapel of the Holy Cross Monastery to celebrate the event. (I had already anticipated this possibility with Dom Thomas in the early 2000s).

The decree of erection of the Priestly Society of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary was signed at the Seminary on the day of the resumption of French courses for foreign seminarians (courses given in part by their French colleagues) on August 22, 2016, after the Mass of the Immaculate Heart of the feast of Mary, to whom we immediately dedicated the new company.

It is because we have desired to stay in the same fight of the Faith as Archbishop Lefebvre, without deviating to the right or left, that we chose this name, the same as that chosen by our founder; this bishop was sparked by our Lord Jesus Christ, head of the Mystical Body and head of the church, to guide us in the midst of the Church’s eclipse, in the “terrible crisis” announced by Our Lady of La Salette in 1846; it seems our time matches the “great falling away” predicted by N.S.J.C. and Saint Paul: “… the number will move away from sound doctrine [i.e. Faith and Morals] to follow the pleasant fables in their ears [the so-called human rights; the right to freedom of religion opposed to the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, well translated by the formula of Pope Francis … “for me, a Catholic God does not exist! … “]. Now it is to Archbishop Lefebvre that Pope Paul VI made the accusation during a personal interview, to be considered by the faithful of the Tradition as “Athanasius of the 20th century.” Was it not rather an unintended compliment?

We start the school year auspiciously, with 12 seminarians; some have sought refuge in individual rental bungalows set in the garden, waiting for our facility at a new property yet to acquire. The return retreat was preached by Father Bruno. We count on your prayers for the sanctification and perseverance of seminarians and thank you in advance for your generosity in coming to meet the material needs of the seminary. For our part, we assure you of our gratitude and our daily prayer for all your intentions.

+Bishop Jean Michel Faure