ArchbishopLefebvre.com
Links
  • Archbishop Lefebvre
    • Biography of Archbishop Lefebvre
    • Who is he?
    • In his own words
  • Sermons
    • Sunday Sermons
  • Letters
    • Archbishop Lefebvre >
      • To Friends and Benefactors
      • Other Letters
    • Bishop Williamson >
      • Friends and Benefactors
      • Eleison Comments >
        • Italiano
        • Espanol
      • To SSPX Priests
  • Blog
  • Books
    • E-Books
    • Free Catholic Books
    • Archbishop Lefebvre
    • Bibles
    • Blessed Sacrament
    • Children Books
    • Childrens Saints
    • DVDs
    • Hell
    • Purgatory
    • Our Lady
    • Sacred Heart
    • Missals
    • Missale Romanum
    • Summa Theologica
    • Saints
  • Catholic Faith
    • Catechisms
    • Catholic Art
    • Chant
    • Dogmas of the Catholic Church
    • Encyclicals
    • Sermons
    • History >
      • HughesVol1index
    • Liturgy
    • Sacraments
    • Prayers >
      • Blessings
    • Way of the Cross
  • SSPX Crisis
    • sspx Archbishop Lefebvre
    • monks nuns
    • SSPX Bishop Fellay
    • SSPX Bishop Tissier
    • ex-sspx Bishop Williamson
    • ex-sspx chazal
    • sspx couture
    • sspx fox
    • ex-sspx fuchs
    • ex-sspx girouard
    • ex-sspx hewko
    • sspx laisney
    • sspx ockerse
    • ex-sspx pfeiffer
    • sspx themann
    • Fr. Ringrose
  • Links
    • Other Sites
    • Donate
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • You Tube
  • TradCat Items
    • Beeswax Candles
    • Chapel Veils
    • Prayer Cards - Our Lady
    • Prayer Cards - Espanol
    • Protected Scapulars
    • Scapulars
    • Unbreakable Rosaries
  • Crisis in Church
    • Declaration of the 2006 Chapter (SSPX)
    • Fr Hewko to SSPX Superiors
    • History of the Archbishop and Rome
    • Vatican II more important than Nicea!
    • The Archbishop and Religious Liberty
    • The right to resist an abuse of power
    • How Are Catholics To Respond To The Present Crisis

Eleison Comments - CCCXI (311) 

6/28/2013

 
Picture
29 June 2013       AUTHORITY CRIPPLED II

“Again I am being urged by a valiant participant in today’s Catholic “Resistance” to put myself at the head of it. The reason given continues to be that I am the only bishop yet taking any part in this movement of opposition to the internal collapse of the Society of St Pius X. But God gave the dying breath of true Church authority to Archbishop Lefebvre, whose successors have cruelly abused it. Why should he give it again? The crisis of the Church has far advanced between the 1970’s and the 2010’s. At the risk of annoying many of you, here are the good soul’s main arguments, with answers which I propose to anybody but impose on nobody –



Read More

Two letter to Bishops Elect June 1988

6/28/2013

 
Picture
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre 
to The Reverend Fathers in God
Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, 

Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, 
Bishops Elect

on 13 June 1988 


On behalf of the Society of St. Pius X, I thank the four of you. When it comes down to it, Rome never answers the essential question. They demand of us a statement which would make us tilt ever so little in their direction, but on their side there is no calling in question of their basic liberalism and modernism. Yet I keep bringing up their modernism.

As I wrote to them on June 2, (1988) however courteous our conversations have been, they have persuaded us that the moment for an understanding has not yet come. We must, have some protection against the spirit of Assisi. They never tackle the basic problem, never! So all our efforts have gone for nothing. We have been at cross purposes in these conversations. On our side, we are expecting the return of Tradition to Rome. On their side, they do not budge.

The Holy Father answers me that in organizing these conversations he has been concerned for unity. Thus the May 5, (1988) protocol was to allow the Society to stay within the Church, in line with the twenty one ecumenical Councils, down to, and including, Vatican II. I still have to reply to this answer of the Holy Father, but the truth of the matter is that we should be demanding of them to pronounce the Anti-modernist Oath and to accept "Lamentabili" and "Quanta Cura." We should be questioning them on the Faith! But they will not reply. They merely persist in their errors.

Yesterday de Saventhem told me that I will be the one responsible for any break. But just look at seminarian Carlo's letter on the total failure of "Mater Ecclesiæ''. He writes, "I was wrong all down the line". Look also at his letter of entreaty to Cardinal Ratzinger. He wrote to the Cardinal several times. No reply! For two years Rome has made fun of these young men. They are being forced to toe the line. Whether it's Garrone, Innocenti or Ratzinger, it is always the same attitude towards ourselves.... In any fight between conservatives and the official Church, Rome always sides with the Conciliar bishop, and condemns Tradition.

De Saventhem (then President of the conservative, — though not Traditional, — organisation, "Una Voce") objects, 'But these are only minor details.' I reply that these details carry enormous weight. They mean to draw all we do over to the spirit of the Council. With the May 5 Protocol, we would soon have been dead. We would not have lasted a year. As of now we are unified, but with that Protocol we would have had to make contacts with them, there would have been division within the Society, everything would have been a cause of division. New vocations might have flowed our way because we were with Rome, but such vocations would have tolerated no disagreement with Rome — which means division. As it is, vocations sift themselves before they reach us.

On their side, Archbishop Decourtray is offering to one of our colleagues, Fr. Laffargue, a Traditional parish, on condition he quits the Society... They are pulling in our people, they are pulling us over to the Council... Whereas on our side, we are saving the Society and Tradition by carefully keeping our distance from them. We made an honest effort, to see if we could keep Tradition going within the official Church. It turned out to be impossible. They have not budged, except for the worse, for instance Msgr. Casaroli's visit to Moscow.

However, our people will go mad with joy to be given some bishops. Ninety percent of them will breathe a great sigh of relief!

Ah, yes, they object, but the May 5 Protocol offered us a bishop. We would never have got him. On television and radio the Bishop of Sion, our diocesan bishop here in Switzerland, said that the Vatican had refused all candidates we put forward. They would accept Dom Gerard, Fr. Pozzetto, Fr. Laffargue. But our own candidates they would have put off, put off, put off. As for de Saventhem, he argues just like one of them!

Your function will be to give the Sacraments, and to preach the Faith. You will be at the service of the Society. Rome only dealt with me because I had the Society behind me. It is a valid entity. Remain very united among yourselves, to lend strength to Tradition. It will be up to the Superior General to take the major decisions...

As for being bishops without the Pope's approval, that is not in itself schismatic. It only became schismatic from Pius XII onwards, with the Chinese problem.

In Rome they are most upset. De Saventhem gave me Cardinal Ratzinger's fax number. They have spiritual AIDS down there. They no longer have God's grace, their immune system has shut down. I do not think one can say that Rome has not lost the Faith. As for eventual sanctions, the unpleasantness grows less with time. The humble people will understand, it is the clergy who will react.

Witnesses to the Faith, martyrs, always had to choose between Faith and authority. We are re-living the trial of Joan of Arc, only with us it is not a disagreeable few months, it has been going on for 20 years!

Marcel Lefebvre






Letter to Bishops elect

June 12, 1988


It's over! The talks between Rome and ourselves are over! The more one thinks about it, the more one realises their intentions are not good. Look at what happened to the traditional leaders, Dom Augustin, Fr. de Blignières, who went over to Rome and have been swallowed up. Rome wants everything to go Vatican II, while they leave us a little bit of Tradition.

De Saventhem (then President of the conservative [not Traditional] organisation, "Una Voce") tells me we could still come to an understanding. But I tell him the misunderstanding is not over little things. They are not changing their position. We cannot put ourselves in the hands of those people. We would be fooling ourselves! We do not mean to let ourselves be eaten up!

The traditional Benedictine Prior, Dom Gérard, tells me that an agreement with Rome would have opened up for us a huge field for the apostolate. Maybe, but in a world of ambiguity, facing in two directions at once, which would make us go rotten in the end. They insist: "But if you were with Rome, you would have more vocations." But vocations like that, if you breathed one word against Rome, would make life in our seminaries impossible! And if we "came to an agreement" with Rome on that basis, then the diocesan bishops would say "Then come along and join in the dioceses," and little by little tradition would be compromised.

All the traditional sisters and nuns in France are against an agreement. They tell me, "We do not want to be dependent on Cardinal Ratzinger. Imagine if he were to come and give us conferences! He would split us down the middle!"

As for the risk of some of our priests leaving us if bishops are consecrated, it will be no worse than in 1977, when a block of priests and seminarians walked out of Ecône all in one go. They have all now gone over to Rome or dispersed. It is time to take a second decision to face up to this Rome. What else can we do? And if they insist that it is worse this time round, because this time it could mean excommunication, well, I reply that the basic problem remains unchanged: Rome means to exterminate Tradition, while the sedevacantists have no love for us…

You four will be bishops for the Church, at the service of the Society of St. Pius X, as laid out in the Protocol of May 5. (1988) The Society has the standing to deal with Rome! Rome wants us to go Conciliar...! It will be the Superior General's job, when the time comes, to pick up the threads again with Rome.

Your function will be to give the sacraments of Holy Order and Confirmation and to KEEP THE FAITH, and to protect the flock... You will be an immense support for the Society. Let all four of you be of one mind, without too many personal initiatives, for instance when it comes to requests for ordination. Do not ordain men who are on their own, and if they form part of a community, take a good look at the community.

You will have to make the rounds once a year, Once every two years for Confirmations. As for ordinations, I am presently doing twenty-five to thirty ceremonies a year, but from 30 June (1988) onwards, I am not moving from Ecône! I will have done my work, by giving to the Society the structure it needs. And then, as I told the Pope, as soon as Tradition comes back to Rome, the problem will be over.

As for an eventual excommunication, it will mean nothing, because they are not looking out for the wellbeing of the Church. However, excommunicating us will be a nuisance for them. They are trying to get to me by fair means or foul, through de Saventhem, a Czech bishop, and so on and so on. They even wanted to send Mother Theresa of Calcutta. But there is no point in such meetings. It has all been talked out long ago.

Let anyone just read the letter of the former seminarian of Ecône, Carlo, who went over to Rome to set up a conservative organisation there, called "Mater Ecclesiæ," who tried to corrupt our seminarians by getting them to leave us, but whose eyes have since been opened wide by the trickery of Rome. In that letter he admits that Rome treats them like outcasts, that they are forced to take off the cassock, that nobody receives them. He has found out what this Rome is like. Rome wants to turn the Society into another "Mater Ecclesiæ." And when the first "Mater Ecclesiæ" collapsed, Cardinal Ratzinger rejoiced.

So why should they keep their word to us? We were protected by God when He allowed the agreement of May 5 to come to naught."

A Testimonial

6/28/2013

 
A Testimonial:
Rome and the “Reconciliation”.


“Could Rome not have been trusted? Had not Rome given enough signs of good will, and of a sincere desire for reconciliation?” Such will be the questions that many will ask-on the occasion of the episcopal consecrations of June 30th.

It is not for us to judge men’s intentions, so rather than question the good will of the Roman authorities we prefer to state the facts for which they are responsible.

That is why we are giving here below the extracts from a letter written by a seminarian who left Ecône to join the seminary; Mater Ecclesiae, at Rome, an establishment desired by the Holy Father and opened by him on October 15th, 1986, and protected by a commission of Cardinals. Mater Ecclesiae was designed, you will remember, to be a Seminary to receive seminarians who left Ecône and “any others who felt like them.”

“How sorry I am! Yes! I have everything, absolutely everything to be sorry about in this ‘enterprise’ of Mater Ecclesiae. Firstly my being sent away for having made insistent requests in favour; for example, of more frequent Tridentine Masses, the wearing of ecclesiastical dress, the correction within the seminary of the errors of the courses being taught us at the Angelicam University…

“The reply to these requests, repeated many times, was silence, and above all, the steady and by now complete realigning of the House and of each of the seminarians on Modernist Rome. The whole enterprise is the laughing-stock of the progressives, with the French bishops at their head, including some of the most traditional!

“Day by day we saw the situation growing worse, the seminarians taking off their habit, seminarians getting themselves accepted by the bishops by renouncing everything, being ready for anything…Then there came the time of sanctions when all those who had been given the task of helping us were ordered by the authorities to look after us no longer…Henceforth for anyone who wanted nothing to do with the bishops of France or anywhere else, there is absolutely no further solution…Vagus…we are from now on wandering clerics, left hanging in the void.

“And the Pope did nothing, and no doubt next year the House Mater Ecclesiae will be closed, which may well be no bad thing.

“Several times I had the occasion to say either to Cardinal Ratzinger or to certain Monsignori of the Curia that, alas, we were forced to admit that Archbishop: Lefebvre was right on most questions and that I was wrong.

“It causes me much suffering to write you these lines as I think of my idiocy in having abandoned Ecône despite your advice, the cowardice of the authorities (I am weighing my words) when it comes to Tradition and their similar cowardice when it comes to ‘ecumenism’ towards the others, the abandoning and denial on the part of almost all those who had undertaken never to let go…everything, yes, absolutely everything, fills me with regret!”

Letter from an ex-seminarian. Rome June 2. 1988.

Letter to Future Bishops 1987

6/28/2013

 
archbishop lefebvre
Archbishop Lefebvre’s Letter to the Future Bishops, on the Feast of St. Augustine, August 29, 1987

Adveniat Regnum Tuum

To: Frs. Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais, Fellay, de Galarreta.

My Dear Friends,

The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below; especially through the corruption of the Holy Mass whichont both the splendid expression of the triumph of Our Lord on the Cross, “Regnavit a Ligno Deus,” and the source of the extension of His kingdom over souls and over societies. Hence the absolute need appears obvious of ensuring the permanency and continuation of the adorable Sacrifice of Our Lord in order that “His Kingdom come”. The corruption of the Holy Mass has brought the corruption of the priesthood and the universal decadence of Faith in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

God raised up the Priestly Society of St. Pius X for the maintenance and perpetuity of His glorious and expiatory sacrifice within the Church. He chose Himself some true priests instructed in and convinced of these divine mysteries. God bestowed upon me the grace to prepare these Levites and to confer upon them the grace of the priesthood for the continuation of the true sacrifice according to the definition of the Council of Trent.

This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. Since this Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.

That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circumstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.

The main purpose of my passing on the episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Holy Mass to be continued, and that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon children and upon the faithful who will ask you for it.

I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, mother and mistress of all the Churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of this faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may come.

Finally, I beseech you to remain attached to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, to remain profoundly united amongst yourselves, in submission to the Society’s Superior General, in the Catholic Faith of all time, remembering this word of St. Paul to the Galatians (Ch 1:8,9). “But even if we or an angel from heaven were to teach you a different gospel from the one we have taught you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, now again I say: if anyone teaches you a different gospel from what you have received, let him be anathema.” My dear friends, be my consolation in Christ Jesus, remain strong in the Faith, faithful to the true Sacrifice of the Mass, to the true and holy priesthood of Our Lord for the triumph and glory of Jesus in heaven and upon earth, for the salvation of souls, for the salvation of my own soul.

In the hearts of Jesus and Mary I embrace you and bless you. Your father in Christ Jesus,

+ Marcel Lefebvre

+  Bish. W on Tenth anniversary of Consecrations

6/28/2013

 

Letter to Friends and Benefactors


Tenth anniversary of the episcopal consecrations

June 1, 1998

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

The last day of this month will be the tenth anniversary of the famous episcopal consecrations performed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in Ecône, Switzerland, on June 30,1988. How does that heroic event look ten years later? More heroic than ever! Let us recall its place in history.

Once upon a time, in the so-called Dark Ages, the Catholic Church reigned supreme as the undisputed mistress of civilization, and all Christendom was Catholic. Then at the end of the Middle Ages, the modern world began in earnest with the break-up of Christendom by Martin Luther. Half Europe turned Protestant, but the other half pulled its Catholic self together in the so-called Counterreformation, and the Church leapt across oceans to make many new Catholic peoples to replace those fallen away.

But of course the Devil would not leave the old or new Catholic nations in peace. Out of the juxtaposition of Catholic truth and Protestant error he developed a virulent new error, liberalism (What is truth? Who knows? What does it matter?), with which he infected the politics in Catholic and Protestant nations alike, generating a series of Revolutions from the end of the 18th century which smashed Catholic altars and pulled down Catholic thrones. Mother Church reeled, but again she pulled her faith and her energy together, and made even of the liberal 19th century one of the greatest missionary centuries ever.

By now the Devil was resolved to break into the Church itself, but of course he could only do so by deceit. So he invented another error, as old as the hills but seeming new, a re-run of Protestantism and liberalism, whereby all the Catholic appearances would be maintained, but the substance would be changed or up-dated to get more in line with the modern world - hence the error's name of modernism. It caught several priests who wished to continue to appear Catholic while turning worldly, which is to sinful man an attractive combination!

However, just before modernism could strike Mother Church a mortal blow, the God-given Pope St. Pius X intervened in the early years of this century to denounce so clearly its perfidy and to smash it with such force that it was driven underground so as to even seem to many Catholics hardly to have existed. Basking then in the reprieve of 50 years (1907-1958) earned for Mother Church by the clear-sightedness and strength of the saintly Pope, the vast majority of Catholics had no idea of the storm being prepared for them.

Thus when Pope Pius XII died in 1958, too many churchmen were tired of resisting the modern world with its Protestantism, liberalism and modernism, so instead of electing another clear-sighted and strong Pope, the Cardinals chose John XXIII, a "Catholic" liberal who launched an Ecumenical Council to "up-date" the Church. At last the moment had come for the condemned modernists lurking in the shadows to step forward and grab power in the Church - John XXIII was on their side.

With his help they hijacked the Second Vatican Council from the beginning, and now the Church was in a desperate plight. When Protestants fell, the Catholic nations had stood. When politics in those nations fell, the Church had stood. When priests in the Church were all ready to fall, the Pope had stood. But now the Pope had virtually fallen - who was left to stand?

At the beginning of the Second Vatican Council in 1962, the good bishops were unorganized and the neo-modernists' onslaught took them completely by surprise. By the end of the Council, however, in 1965, some 450 truly Catholic bishops had grouped together to defend the Faith, and when they went home, they were resolved to continue working together to save the Church. Alas, they had reckoned without the structure of the Church, and Pope Paul VI.

By the structure of the Catholic Church, it is the Pope who commands, and Pope Paul VI was a liberal. These Catholic bishops, he sacked. Those, he waited until they died. Others, he put under such pressure that they cracked, and resigned. He was resolved to break the back of their Catholic resistance, and by fair means or foul, he did just that. No doubt he was convinced he was acting for the good of the Church, but the Church was devastated just the same.

Then had Our Lord's promise failed, that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church? No. Out of the 450 resistant bishops there was one who could not be sacked (he had already resigned), who would not crack under the pressure (despite Rome's best efforts), and who did not die until he had built a shelter to protect the Church's essential treasures for the duration of the storm - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

What a man! Alone now, against Protestantism, against liberalism, against the Popes, against his fellow bishops, he was alone, alone, alone, except for a handful of scattered priests, and a handful of dear youngsters that he began to draw around him as seminarians. And with a few old priests and these youngsters he constructed that shelter, the Society of St. Pius X.

But under what pressure! In 1975 Rome pretends to "dissolve" the new-born Society. In 1976 it pretends to "suspend" the Archbishop from his priestly functions because his Society, which has refused to die, is just producing its first class of a dozen priests. The Archbishop and his youngsters continue ("Archbishop, do you realize what mistakes your young priests make?" "What do you expect me to do? The old priests won't stay with me!"). He hopes against hope that a few bishops will stand by him to help defend the Faith, but Providence so disposes that only in the early 1980's does Bishop de Castro Mayer from an obscure little Brazilian diocese at last step forward to associate himself with the stand taken by the Archbishop.

Meanwhile Rome is all the time resolutely transforming the Catholic Church into the Newchurch to be the religious spearhead of the New World Order. Pope John Paul II's Assisi event of October, 1986, placing Catholic truth on an equal footing alongside a dozen sectarian, heretical, Judaic and pagan errors, is a decisive alarm-signal for the Archbishop, by now 80 years old and feeling his end approaching. For the longest possible time he has negotiated with Rome and stayed within official structures to avoid even the appearance of breaking with the Roman Church, but soon he must choose. To ensure the continuance of ordinations for his priestly Society and of Confirmations for his now worldwide flock, either he must trust the Roman wolf to look after his Traditional sheep, or he must consecrate bishops of his own to look after them, at the risk of being condemned by Rome and even "excommunicated".

Hence the fateful decision of May 6, and the glorious action of June 30, 1998. But what a decision to have to take, and that he still had to take on his own! See the enclosed flyer for the thinking of his mind, now made up, in the middle of June. (These texts are published here for the first time). What calm! What clarity! What a man! And he died, as he had guessed, a few years later.

And of his heritage we have all received, and continue to receive, against the entire modern world, against bishops, cardinals and Popes, against hell and high water, but with the Truth, with the Faith, and with God.

Your Grace, you can only be very high in Heaven. Thank you, thank you, thank you! Pray for us and intercede for us here below, that we may never abandon the Faith or Church which you defended, rather that with each passing ten years the anniversary of your glorious act may be more and more glorious!

Priestly ordinations take place here in Winona on Saturday morning, June 20 (celebrated by Bishop de Galarreta, not by Bishop Fellay as announced). There should be two new deacons and two new priests. That is not a large number, but it is worth a large number if they remain faithful. The crisis of modernism is about the Faith, not about numbers. All visitors welcome.

Remember also the Spiritual Exercises being given as usual at Winona in the summer, the men's retreat from July 6 to 11 still having places. And may you spend a pleasant summer, taking a vacation from worries but never a vacation from God!

Sincerely yours in Christ,



+ Richard Williamson

Saint of the Day: St Iranaeus

6/28/2013

 
Picture
Irenaeus was born in proconsular Asia, not far from the city of Smyrna.  There he had already as a boy entrusted himself to the teaching of Polycarp, disciple of John the Evangelist, and bishop of Smyrna.  Under such an excellent master, he made remarkable progress in learning and in the precepts of the Christian religion.  When Polycarp was taken up to heaven by a glorious martyrdom, although Irenaeus was eminently versed in sacred letters, nevertheless, he burned with an incredible zeal to learn what articles of belief the others who were instructed by the Apostles had received, to be preserved in the deposit of faith.  For this reason he brought together as many of those men as he could, and whatever things he heard from them, he carefully retained in his mind.  Thus he could advantageously bring them to bear in the future against those heresies, which he saw were being diffused more widely day by day to the great detriment of the Christian people, and he diligently planned thoroughly to confute them.  Then, having set out for Gaul, he was appointed as a priest of the church of Lyons by Pothinus the bishop.  And this office he discharged in such a manner, labouring both by word and by teaching, that (according to the testimony of the holy Martyrs who, when Marcus Aurelius was emperor, were engaged in a vigorous combat for the true religion) he distinguished himself as an imitator of the testament of Christ.

These very Martyrs, together with the clergy of Lyons, began to be anxious concerning the peace of the churches of Asia, which the faction of the Montanists had disturbed.  And so they selected Irenaeus, whose person they considered of the greatest importance, as the one before all others whom they should send to Rome to Pope Eleutherius to ask, that, with the condemnation of the new dissidents by the authority of the Apostolic See, the cause of the dissensions might be removed.  Already the bishop Pothinus had died a martyr and Irenaeus succeeded him.  He applied himself so well to the duties of a bishop, that in a short time he saw not only all the citizens of Lyons, but also many of the inhabitants of other cities in Gaul cast aside their superstitions and errors, and enroll themselves in the Christian army.  Meanwhile, a dispute had arisen concerning the date of the celebration of Easter.  As the bishops of Asia were disagreeing with nearly all their fellow-bishops, the Roman Pontiff Victor had cut them off from the communion of the faithful.  Irenaeus, however, who was zealous for peace, admonished him in a becoming manner, and urged, by examples of the practice of previous Pontiffs, that he should not suffer so many Churches to be cut off from Catholic unity, on account of a rite which they said they had received from their ancestors.

He wrote many works, which are mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea and by St. Jerome, a great part of which have perished through the ravages of time.  There are extant five books of his against heresies, written down about the year 180, while Eleutherius was still ruling the Christian commonwealth.  In the third book, the man of God, instructed by those who, it is certain, had been hearers of the Apostles, gives to the Roman Church and to the succession of her bishops a testimony surpassing all others in weight and brilliancy, when he calleth her the faithful, perpetual, and most assured guardian of divine tradition.  For he said, that with this Church it is necessary that the whole Church (that is, those in all places who are of the faithful) should agree, because of its more powerful preeminence.  At length with almost countless others, whom he had himself brought over to the true faith and its practice, being crowned with martyrdom he passed to heaven in the year of salvation 202.  At that time Septimius Severus Augustus had commanded that all those who wished to remain constantly steadfast in the practice of the Christian religion should be condemned to the most cruel torments and to death.  The supreme Pontiff Benedict XV extended the feast of St. Irenaeus to the universal Church.

Powerful Prayer to Our Lady Of Perpetual Succour (Help) Feast 27th June

6/27/2013

 
Picture
In Thanksgiving to Our Mother on this her day


Prayer Found Under Christ's Sepulchre 1503 Ad


O God Almighty, who suffered death upon the cross, particularly for my sins, be with me.
Holy Cross of Jesus, have pity on me.
Holy Cross of Jesus, be my protector.
Holy Cross of Jesus, take away all bitter pains.
Holy Cross of Jesus, take away all evil.
Holy Cross of Jesus, let me walk in the way of salvation.
Preserve me from any temporal accidents, take away any danger of sudden death. 
 I always adore the Holy Cross of Jesus Christ: 
 Jesus of Nazareth crucified, have pity on me; make the spirit of evil leave me for all times.
O Mother of Perpetual Succour. I come before Thy Sacred picture and with a child-like conscience invoke thine aid. 
Show Thyself a Mother to me now. Have pity of me. 
O, dearest Mother of Perpetual Succour, for the love Thou bearest to Jesus and in honour of His Sacred Wounds, help me in this my necessity..
Mention your intentions here...
O Loving Mother, I leave all to thee in the Name of the Father. 

I leave all to thee in the Name of the Son. 
I leave all to thee in the Name of the Holy Ghost. 
Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, pray for us.
Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, pray for us.
Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, pray for us.
Amen.      


Sent by the Pope to Charles when he went to fight the enemy in France. He who wants or hears someone else read it or carries on his person, will not die suddenly, drown, burn, be poisoned or lose battle or be taken prisoner. *During childbirth, a woman who reads or listens to someone else read the prayer, or carries it on her person will have a short labour. *When the child is born, place the prayer on his or her right side and it will be preserved from evil. When walking in the street and you find anyone in a fit, put the prayer on the right side and they will recover. He who writes this prayer whether for himself or another, I will bless him, says the Lord and he who ridicules it will perish.When this prayer is placed in a home, such a home will be preserved from lightning and thunder. He who reads it daily will be given a sign 3 days before his death.  

Download AVG Internet Security Free Trial

Bishop Williamson Greatest quotes

6/27/2013

 
Picture
Bishop Williamson’s Greatest Quotes by ServusSpiritusSancti 


 The 25th anniversary of Bishop Williamson's Consecration as a Bishop is coming up this Sunday. In honor of this occasion, I have compiled a list of some of his greatest quotes. Enjoy!

"The love of God is demanding, which is why people don't want the real love of God.  They want the nice, slushy chocolate human substitute. Let's all just swim in chocolate until we fall into Hell." (Bishop Williamson, Sweden, 2008)

"On the other hand if human freedom is of such value that every individual must be left free to corrupt his fellow citizens by the public practice and proselytizing of any false religion he chooses (unless public order be disturbed), then false religions must be left free to flourish in the public domain (e.g. Protestant sects in Latin America today). So the difference between false religions and the one true religion is less important than human dignity. So the true religion is not so important. So the worth of God compared with the worth of man is not so important. Thus Vatican II down-grades God as it up-grades man. Ultimately Vatican II is replacing the religion of God with the religion of man. No wonder Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society of St Pius X to uphold the transcendent dignity and worth of God, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in a world and Church gone mad, drunk on man’s dignity." (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, Issue CCLIV, 2012)

"How can you make someone think whose mind is unhinged? You can't! What can you do? You can pray for him, you can love him... that's about it." (Bishop Williamson, Doctrinal Conference, 2003)

"God gives us minds and our minds are meant to discover the truth and until we discover the truth it's natural to doubt.  But doubting is for the purpose of arriving at the truth." (Bishop Williamson, interview, 2005)

"Then back to our original question: where now for the SSPX ?  The answer is clear. It must continue along the path set for it by its Founder, namely firm resistance to the (at least objective) apostates in Rome, making known as widely as possible the Archbishop's diagnosis of the otherwise insoluble problems of Church and world. His solution is simply to maintain Catholic life in accordance with the pre-Conciliar Catholic doctrine and morals of all time, for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of as many souls as possible. " (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, Issue CXCIV, 2011)

"For inside the home, any priest worth his salt will tell them to start by firmly establishing the family Rosary in the home, and to continue by throwing out that television set which is a tabernacle of the world, the flesh and the Devil. From the youngest age, let children's hearts and minds be filled in the home with live interchange and lively discussion of everything under the sun. This is because by the time children are of an age to go to 'university', the die is usually cast, for good or ill, so that if a boy has grown up in a real live home, lifted towards Heaven by prayer, the worst of 'universities' may not do him too much harm, whereas if he has been raised as a televidiot, the best university may not help him too much towards Heaven." (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, Issue CLX, 2010)

"Now not only does what is known as the “Holocaust” serve as the secular religion of the New World Order (Auschwitz replaces Calvary, the gas-chambers replace the Cross of Our Lord, and the Six Million play the part of the Redeemer), but also it seems to me that the post-World War II Germans have difficulty in respecting themselves unless they are beating their breast for the alleged crimes of the Third Reich." (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, Issue CCXCI, 2013)

"On the one hand the SSPX is part of the true Catholic whole, “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic”. On the other hand it had better avoid making itself part of the diseased Conciliar whole. As a healthy branch grafted onto the unhealthy Conciliar plant, it would necessarily catch the Conciliar disease. No way can a mere branch heal that disease." (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, Issue CCLIII, 2012)

"Ten yeas ago I was innocently asked in Canada whether women should wear trousers. Some ten weeks ago, also in Canada, I was asked whether a girl should go to a conservative Novus Ordo university. The answer now to the second question may be as stormy as the answer to the first:- because of all kinds of natural reasons, almost no girl should go to any university!

The deep-down reason is the same as for the wrongness of women's trousers: the unwomaning of woman. The deep-down cause in both cases is that Revolutionary man has betrayed modem woman; since she is not respected and loved for being a woman, she tries to make herself a man. Since modem man does not want her to do what God meant her to do, namely to have children, she takes her revenge by invading all kinds of things that man is meant to do." (Bishop Williamson, letter, "Girls at University", 2001)

"So just before he dies the “atheist” may still claim that he at least was never spoken to by God, but in the instant after he dies he will grasp in a flash that for every moment of his waking life God has been appealing to him through some creature or other around him. “Am I now unjust,” God might ask him, “if I condemn you for every remaining moment of my life, when for every moment of your life you have been refusing me ? Have what you have chosen. Depart from me int-” (Mt. XXV, 41)." (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, Issue CCLVIII, 2012) 

"The direction being taken by Rome is clear as clear can be. Can anyone still not see it? If one wishes to organize the defense of the Catholic faith, there is, alas, only the Archbishop's way. One cannot put oneself under these neo-modernist Romans.

How clear-sighted the Archbishop was! What faith he had! What a gift from God he was! Rome may crush Fr. Bisig [and the Fraternity of St. Peter], but it could not crush the Archbishop, nor can it crush any Catholics who like him make no compromises on Truth. The Truth is master of Rome, and not Rome master of the Truth, ultimately. The Archbishop loved Rome, in the depths of his being, but still Our Lord's Truth came first. "The Truth is mighty and will prevail", and that Truth is the strength and cohesion of the Society of St. Pius X. All who seek the Truth find themselves today substantially united in holding, broadly, the Society's positions, but that is not because they are the Society's positions, it is because they happen to be the Truth.

Once again, great Archbishop, thank you, and please pray for us." (Bishop Williamson, letter, "The Fraternity of St. Peter", 1999)

"As with all problems of sin, the only true solution is the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For instance in a Catholic marriage the painful control of man over woman, evident in all non-Christian cultures and re-emerging in our own anti-Christian culture, becomes by supernatural grace more and more that subordination  of woman to man which is in accordance with their nature and which is  profitable to both, which Eve had before she and Adam fell.

But away with Eden by grace! The modern world will have none of Jesus Christ's solutions to Adam's and Eve's problems. Making idols of liberty and equality, to refuse any inequality or subordination of woman to man, it will deny any distinction between them, it denies of course any order of God in His creation, any need for Redemption, and it will deny if necessary God's very existence. Today's feminism is intimately connected to witchcraft and satanism." (Bishop Williamson, letter, "Women's trousers are an assault upon women's womanhood", 1991)

"The discussions [between the SSPX and Rome] were bound to be a waste of time, unless either the Romans began coming to their senses, or unless the Society began to betray, one or the other, otherwise there could not be an agreement. Nevertheless, they held these discussions. Who wanted them? Rome wants anything that will tear apart the Society, and therefore, Rome played along. The fault was on the side of the Society, who, instead of saying [to Rome] "You are a bunch of creeps! You are locked into creepery, and as long as you continue creeping, we will not talk with you because it is a waste of time"... instead of saying that, instead of acting like choosers, and saying "We choose not to talk to you as long as your minds are simply not working", the Society said "We'd like to talk, because we'd like to be recognized. We'd like to be nice. We'd like you to be nice". (Bishop Williamson, conference, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2013)

"Therefore the Newchurchmen are, objectively, Judases, however sincere or well-intentioned they may be. In fact they are crusading Judases, because they have themselves convinced that their Newchurch will save both Church and world. That is why they not only firmly believe in compromising Catholic Tradition with the world, but also they are set upon pulling what remains of Tradition into their compromise. That is why the SSPX both refused the recent approaches of "Rome" to draw it into the Newchurch, and must prepare to resist any more such approaches.

This situation is bound to continue until the Newchurchmen abandon their (objective) Judas compromise with the world, and return to Catholic Tradition. On that day they will have once more a huge problem with the same old wicked world, but at least they will be true churchmen again. And a clear sign of their return to sanity will be that they have no more problem with Catholic Tradition, not even with the SSPX!" (Bishop Williamson, letter, "Judas and the Newchurch", 2002)

"Surely the crisis of Vatican II proved if anything the need for Catholics to do some thinking for themselves... and not just follow their leaders blindly..." (Bishop Williamson, Eleison Comments, Issue CXCIV, 2011)

"With the Grace of God we'll have the bravery to stand by the truth, cost what it may... and if they brutally murder us, hey, that's the fastest elevator to heaven! (Bishop Williamson, Doctrinal Conference, 2003)

Thank you, Your Excellency, for all of your good work these past 25 years.

God Bless.


ServusSpiritusSancti | June 27, 2013 at 1:03 am | Categories: Traditional Catholic Faith | URL: http://wp.me/p2MjAo-87

Download AVG Internet Security Free Trial

Scandal - The real notion and distinctions

6/26/2013

 
Picture
Notion of scandal
According to St. Thomas (II-II, Q. liii, a. 1) scandal is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin. It is a word or action, that is either an external act—for an internal act can have no influence on the conduct of another—or the omission of an external act, because to omit what one should do is equivalent to doing what is forbidden; it must be evil in itself, or in appearance; this is the interpretation of the words of St. Thomas: minus rectum. It is not the physical cause of a neighbor's sin, but only the moral cause, or occasion; further, this moral causality may be understood in a strict sense, as when one orders, requests, or advises another to commit the sin (this is strictly inductive scandal, which some call co-operation in a broad sense), or in a large sense, as when a person without being directly concerned in the sin nevertheless exercises a certain influence on the sin of his neighbor, e.g. by committing such a sin in his presence (this is inductive scandal in a broad sense). For scandal to exist it is therefore essential and sufficient, with regard to the nature of the act and the circumstances under which it takes place, that it be of a nature to induce sin in another; consequently it is not necessary that the neighbour should actually fall into sin; and on the other hand, for scandal strictly so-called, it is not enough that a neighbour take occasion to do evil from a word or action which is not a subject of scandal and exercises no influence on his action; it must be a cause of spiritual ruin, that is of sin, consequently that is not scandal which merely dissuades the neighbour from a more perfect act, as for instance, prayer, the practice of the Evangelical virtues, the more frequent use of the sacraments, etc. Still less can that be considered scandal, which only arouses comment, indignation, horror etc., for instance blasphemy committed in the presence of a priest or of a religious; it is true that the act arouses indignation and in common parlance it is often called scandalous, but this way of speaking is inaccurate, and in strictly theological terminology it is not the sin of scandal. Hence scandal is in itself an evil act, at least in appearance, and as such it exercises on the will of another an influence more or less great which induces to sin. Furthermore, when the action from which another takes occasion of sin is not bad, either in itself or in appearance, it may violate charity (see below), but strictly speaking it is not the sin of scandal. However, some authorities understanding the word scandal in a wider sense include in it this case 


Divisions

(1) Scandal is divided into active and passive. Active scandal is that which has been defined above; passive scandal is the sin which another commits in consequence of active scandal. Passive scandal is called scandal given (scandalum datum), when the act of the scandalizer is of a nature to occasion it; and scandal received (acceptum), when the action of the one who scandalizes is due solely to ignorance or weakness—this is scandal of the weak (infirmorum),—or to malice and evil inclinations—this is pharisaical scandal, which was that of the Pharisees with regard to the words and actions of Christ. 


(2) Active scandal is direct when he who commits it has the intention of inducing another to sin; such is the sin of one who solicits another to the crime of adultery, theft etc. If one prevails upon another to commit the sin not only because of an advantage or pleasure believed to accrue therefrom but chiefly because of the sin itself, because it is an offence to God or the ruin of a neighbor's soul, direct scandal is called by the expressive name of diabolical scandal. On the other hand scandal is only indirect when without the intention to cause another to fall into sin we say a word or perform a deed which is for him an occasion of sin 


Malice


(1) That active scandal is a mortal sin Christ Himself has taught (Matthew 18:6 sqq.) and reason makes evident. If charity obliges us to assist our neighbor's temporal and spiritual necessities (see ALMS; CORRECTION) it obliges us still more strongly not to be to him a cause of sin or spiritual ruin. Hence it follows that every sin of scandal is contrary to charity. 
Moreover (2) direct scandal is obviously contrary to the virtue against which another is induced to sin; in fact every virtue forbids not only its violation by ourselves but also that we should desire its violation by another. 

(3) Indirect scandal is also contrary to charity (see above); but is it also opposed to the virtue violated by another? St. Alphonsus answers in the affirmative; others, and this seems the true opinion, deny this. In fact no one has hitherto proved this species of malice, and those who admit it are not consistent with themselves, for they should also maintain, which no one does, that anyone who is indirectly the cause of an injustice by another is also bound to restitution; what is true of justice should hold good for the other virtues. 

Cases in which the sin of scandal occurs


The question remains: When is there a sin of scandal? for it is obvious not all who an occasion of sin to others are thereby guilty. 


(1) As a general rule the sin of scandal exists when one directly induces another to do a thing which he cannot do without sin, either formal or material, e.g. by soliciting a person to perjury, drunkenness, sins of the flesh, etc., even though the person induced to this act is habitually or at the time disposed to commit it. It is otherwise when the thing we ask is good or indifferent; this may be done without scandal and without sin, when there is a just cause or serious reason for asking it; even though one foresees that the other will probably sin in granting it; thus for the common weal a judge may demand an oath even from those who will probably commit perjury; one who has need of money and who cannot find anyone who will lend to him may have recourse to an usurer although he foresees that the latter will exact exorbitant and unjust interest, etc. The thing asked must be without sin either formal or material because it is not allowed to profit by the ignorance of another to induce him to commit what is forbidden, to cause a child to utter blasphemies, to induce someone who is unaware of the precept of the Church to eat flesh on a fast day and so on. In fact in all these cases the sin is to be ascribed to the person who endeavors to cause it This is the general rule, but here the question arises, may one advise another bent on committing a great crime to be satisfied instead with doing something less evil? This question is much discussed, but the opinion which considers such a course justifiable is probable and may be followed in practice. In fact the advice thus given is not properly speaking advice to do evil but to do a lesser evil or rather not to do the greater evil which a man intends to commit; therefore some writers exact that the words or circumstances must demonstrate that one advises the evil solely as the lesser evil; others, however, consider it sufficient that such be the intention, even when not made manifest, of the person who gives the advice. Nevertheless, if a man had decided to do an injury to a certain person one could not—unless in exceptional circumstances—induce him to do a lesser injury to any other person. 


(2) He is guilty of the sin of scandal who without positively pledging or inducing to sin nevertheless performs an act evil in itself which will be an occasion of sin to another. The same must be said when the act is evil only in appearance, unless there be sufficient reason to act and to permit the fault of another Thus those who blaspheme before others when they foresee that their example will cause the latter to blaspheme are guilty of scandal; so also those who attack religion or morals, hold immoral conversation, sing immoral songs or (by their behaviour dress, writings etc.) offend against the laws of decency and modesty, when they foresee, as is usual, that those who see, hear, or read will be impelled to sin. 


(3) To prevent another's sin one may even be bound to forego an act which is sinful neither in itself nor in appearance, but which is nevertheless the occasion of sin to another, unless there be sufficient reason to act otherwise. It has already been shown that when there is a just cause we may ask of another a thing which he can do without sin although we may foresee that he will not do it without fault. Likewise we are not bound to be disturbed by pharisaical scandal, which may follow an action we perform; but we must avoid scandalizing the weak if we can do so easily. The application of these principles depends on concrete circumstances, which vary with each case; however, the following general rules may be given: 


To prevent scandalizing another we must never transgress the negative precepts of the natural law, nor its positive precepts in cases where they truly bind; thus it is not permitted to lie to prevent a mortal sin, neither can one neglect receiving baptism to avoid the blasphemies of one's parents. 


It is not permitted to pass over any precept whatever in order to prevent pharisaical scandal, but we may and even should, in special cases and for one or two occasions, pass over a precept whether Divine or human, to avoid scandalizing the weak. 


We should, to avoid scandal, forego good or indifferent works which are not of precept, if we can do so without great inconvenience. 


Finally, to prevent the scandal of the weak we are sometimes obliged to sacrifice some temporal good of less importance, but we are not bound to do this when the goods are of greater importance. 

A letter of Appeal to the unfaithful to Resistance

6/26/2013

 
Picture
As time has passed in the terrible crisis within the SSPX along with the insurmountable evidence of compromises, lies, secrecies and blatant betrayal from the highest authorities (Bp. Fellay, Fr. Pfluger, Fr. Schmidberger, Fr. Rostand, etc.), much hope or expectancy has been placed on the old-timer priests--most of them formed by Bp. Williamson--as far as having their help to counter-fight the myriads of new language, approaches and actions taken towards the worst enemy of the Church:  The Modernists! (Pope Saint Pius X) 

Here is "the" very big deception with regard to this hope:  Bishop Tissier! 

In 2012 he was reported as saying that if the deal really goes through, he will retire.  He has done nothing against the liberal attacks of Bp. Fellay, thereby seriously compromising the work of Archbishop Lefebvre which is none other than to preserve intact the Catholic Faith.  He has even stated he wasn't sure if Archbishop Lefebvre did the right thing in consecrating his "not-too-long-ago friend" Bishop Williamson. Later reports from France have also mentioned Bp. Tissier saying that a "regularization" wouldn't be bad after all [2013].  So there you have it:  Bp. Tissier's "engine" has already given signs of having the same problems as his clutch.

Much hope was placed in some really good priests of the SSPX, but many fell short on this hope.  I would like to mention some names, but I'm certain you could also have your own list of good priests who have helped you become a Traditional Catholic but who right now have let themselves be silenced.  We should feel urged to encourage them as we were once encouraged by them to stand for the Truth.

How in the world could one imagine priests of the caliber of Fr. Peter Scott (my biggest deception after Bp. Tissier), Fr. Morgan, Fr. Robinson, Fr. Cooper, Fr. Novak, Fr. Fox, etc. being muzzled by the liberal dictator from Menzingen???

 Mystery of iniquity!

Many are the excuses of these priests... A major one is "obedience" so...
“What should I do? I am told: ‘You must obey. You are disobedient. You do not have the right to continue doing what you are doing, for you divide the Church.’ ” What is a law?  What is a decree?  What obliges one to obey?  “A law,” Leo XIII says, “is the ordering of reason to the common good, but not towards the common evil.  This is so obvious that if a rule is ordered towards an evil, THEN IT IS NO LONGER A LAW.”  Leo XIII said this explicitly in his encyclical “Libertas.” In other words, a law which is not for the common good is not a law and consequently, ONE IS NOT OBLIGED TO OBEY IT. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in Montreal, Canada, May, 1982). 

They are hiding themselves behind a virtuous word (obedience) while viciously acting as cowards.
“A BLIND OBEDIENCE … has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic Faith… One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between BLIND OBEDIENCE and the VIRTUE OF OBEDIENCE.  Indiscriminate obedience is actually A SIN AGAINST THE VIRTUE OF OBEDIENCE.”
 (Archbishop Lefebvre, USA, July, 1978). 

Some other priests use the word "prudence" to disguise their cowardly silence which enables them to continue on, comfortably ‘taken care of,’ but...
“We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent!  Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues and see that the world is rotten because of silence.” St. Catherine of Siena

Many of them admit [internally] that minimizing Vatican II is wrong.  Many of them are against putting the candle under the bushel with regard to condemnations toward Assisi III, for instance.  Many of them know now about GREC and the unjust expulsion of Bp. Williamson.  Many of them know Religious Liberty is NOT very limited (quite the contrary).  Many others know that the agreed upon and signed acceptance of being under the local diocesan bishops is a disgusting betrayal.  Many others came to find out Vatican II "enlightens and deepens certain aspects of the doctrine of the Church," and that the New Code of Canon Law is unrestrictedly accepted as well as the legitimacy of the new mass (according to Bp. Fellay and his Doctrinal Declaration).  So why are they still silent??

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend Truth is to suppress it; and indeed, to neglect to confound evil men when we can do it is no less a sin than to encourage them.” Pope Felix III

“He that sees another in error and endeavors not to correct it testifies himself to be in error.” Pope Leo I

“All the evils of the world are due to lukewarm Catholics.” Pope St. Pius V

“All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics.” Pope St. Pius X

“When they sin, rebuke them in the presence of all that the rest also may have fear.” 1 Timothy 5:20

Many priests of the SSPX do not interiorly condemn the just resistance and efforts of those fighting the good fight in the open field, but is this enough?

“He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, both are abominable before God.” Proverbs 17:15

Some others hope and wait for a better formation of resistance and the greater assurance of a bishop...  Is a structure or even a bishop greater than Truth?

"Do not follow the multitude nor rely yourself on what seems to be of a greater number if, by it, you deviate from the truth." St. Athanasius

Now some Faithful wish for these priests to do something and sometimes even criticize them for not doing anything.  But what are they themselves doing about it?  Would the SSPX clergy be so lethargic if the laity were standing by and/or speaking up for the Truth?

"The greatest obstacle in the apostolate of the Church is the timidity or rather the cowardice of the Faithful." Pope St. Pius X

"To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against Truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe.  In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind."

Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae

Some yet try to justify their silence in order to avoid any scandal:
"It is better that the Truth be known than that scandal be covered up." St. Augustine
"In hell, the hottest place is reserved for those who have chosen neutrality in times of crisis." Dante Alighieri

What about those afraid of Menzingen's threatening letters and canonical sanctions?

"Human laws cannot be contrary to the Divine Law from which they derive all their force and efficacy, so that a law which prescribes something morally wrong is no law at all and cannot exert any binding force on the conscience.  A parent is bound by natural, Divine, and human law to bring up his children properly."
 (Manual of Moral Theology, Fr. Thomas Slater, Vol. 1, Book 3, ch. 3) 
Is there any doubt that many of these well-formed priests KNOW that “They [neo-SSPX] are blind and leaders of the blind.”  And “IF THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND, BOTH WILL FALL INTO THE PIT.”

"If the Faith is in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public." St. Thomas Aquinas

“Every Catholic can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith, the Faith of the Eternal Church, upheld by his childhood catechism.  The defense of his Faith is the first duty of every Christian, more especially of every priest and bishop.  Wherever an order carries with it the danger of corrupting Faith and morals, “disobedience” becomes a grave duty.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, no. 9, 1975). 

Let us heartly take Don Bosco's words when he said:

"I do not fear at all what men can do to me for speaking the truth. I only fear what God would do if I were to lie."


"Have courage in your Faith and convictions.  The evil ones are the ones who should fear the good not the other way around. ~ 
St. John Bosco

"Therefore, In God's name!  Let us go bravely!" ~ St. Joan of Arc, 1429



Courtesy 
http://stdominic3order.blogspot.com/

<<Previous
Forward>>


    archbishop lefebvre
    Click to see more

    Enter your email address for daily posts:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    Archives

    December 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013

    Categories

    All
    Apologetics
    Archbishop Lefebvre
    Bishop Williamson
    Blessed Sacrament
    Catechism
    Catholic History
    Chalk Talks
    Chastisement
    Devotions
    Easter
    Eleison Comments
    Eleison Comments
    Eleison Comments Italian
    Encyclicals
    Espanol Eleison Comments
    Families
    Fatima
    Feast Days
    For Fathers (Dads)
    For Moms
    Fortitude
    Holy Ghost
    Holy Name
    Holy Souls
    Holy Week
    Home Schooling
    Lent
    Liberalism
    Litanies
    Liturgy
    Marriage
    Martyrology
    Martyrs
    Mass
    Meditations Of Abl
    Modesty
    News
    New World Order
    Obedience
    Our Lady
    Our Lady Of Quito
    Our Lord
    Pentecost
    Pioneer Priests
    Prayers
    Sacramentals
    Sacraments
    Sacred Heart
    Saint Of The Day
    Saints For April
    Saints For August
    Saints For December
    Saints For February
    Saints For January
    Saints For July
    Saints For June
    Saints For March
    Saints For May
    Saints For November
    Saints For October
    Saints For September
    Scandal
    Scapular
    Sermons
    Sspx
    St Benedict
    St Joseph
    St Michael
    St Michael
    Sundays Of The Year
    Temptations
    The Church
    The Last Things
    The Mass
    The Pope
    The Rosary
    The Saints
    The Virtues
    Tradcat Comments
    Truth Society

    Picture
    Click to see inside the store
    Picture
    k d
    Counter Site
    While Archbishop Lefebvre Blog is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating this site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made via the button below

    Archbishop Lefebvre

    Promote Your Page Too
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.