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

Paul IV, a liberal! -Archbishop's opinion

12/31/2013

 
Picture
Excerpt from The have uncrowned Him, Angelus Press

Obviously, the Church will one day judge this council and these popes. How will Paul VI, in particular, fare? Some call him heretic, schismatic, and apostate; others believe themselves to have proved that he could not have acted for the good of the Church, and that therefore he was not in fact pope - the theory held by Sedevacantists. I do not deny that these opinions have some arguments in their favor. Perhaps, you will say, in 30 years secrets will have been revealed, or elements that should have been obvious to contemporary observers will stand out, statements made by this pope in complete contradiction to the traditions of the Church, etc. Perhaps. But I do not believe that such hypotheses are necessary; in fact, I think it would be a mistake to espouse them.

Others think, simplistically, that there were two popes: one, the true pope, imprisoned in the cellars of the Vatican, and the other, an imposter, his double, seated on the throne of Peter, working for the destruction of the Church. Books have been published about the two popes, based on the ‘revelations’ of a possessed person and on supposedly scientific arguments that state, for instance, that the double’s voice is not the same as that of the real Paul VI…!



The real solution seems entirely different to me, much more complex, more difficult, and more painful.  It is given us by a friend of Paul VI, Cardinal Danielou. In his Memoirs, published by a member of his family, the cardinal clearly states, “It is clear that Paul VI is a liberal Pope.”

Such is the solution that seems the most historically likely, because this pope was himself a fruit of liberalism. His whole life was permeated with the influence of the men he chose to surround him or to rule him, and they were liberals.

Paul VI did not hide his liberal leanings; at the Council, the men he chose as moderators to replace the presidents appointed by John XXIII, were Cardinal Agagianian, a cardinal of colorless personality from the Curia, and Cardinals Lercaro, Suenens and Dopfner, all three liberals and the pope’s friends. The presidents were sidelined at the head table, and these three liberals directed the conciliar debates. In the same way, Paul VI supported the liberal faction that opposed the tradition of the Church throughout the entire Council. This is a recognized fact. Paul VI repeated – I quoted it to you - the exact words of Lammenais at the end of the Council: “L’Eglise ne demande que la liberte” – the Church only seeks freedom - a doctrine condemned by Gregory XVI and Pius IX.

Paul VI was undeniably very strongly influenced by liberalism. This explains the historic evolution experienced by the Church over the last few decades, and it describes Paul VI’s personal behavior very well. The liberal, as I have told you, is a man who lives in constant contradiction. He states the principles, and does the opposite; he is perpetually incoherent.


Here are a few examples of the thesis-antithesis conundrums that Paul VI loved to present as so many insoluble problems, mirroring his anxious and conflicted mind. The encyclical Ecclesiam suam, (August 6, 1964), provides an illustration:

If, as We said, the Church realizes what is God’s will in its regard, it will gain for itself a great store of energy, and in addition will conceive the need for pouring out this energy in the service of all men. It will have a clear awareness of a mission received from God, of a message to be spread far and wide. Here lies the source of our evangelical duty, our mandate to teach all nations, and our apostolic endeavor to strive for the eternal salvation of all men. (…) The very nature of the gifts which Christ has given the Church demands that they be extended to others and shared with others. This must be obvious from the words: “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations,” Christ’s final command to His apostles. The word apostle implies a mission from which there is no escaping.

That is the thesis, and the antithesis follows immediately:

To this internal drive of charity which seeks expression in the external gift of charity, We will apply the word ‘dialogue.’ The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make.

And finally he attempts a synthesis, which only reinforces the antithesis:

Before we can convert the world - as the very condition of converting the world - we must approach it and speak to it.[1]


Of greater gravity are the words with which Paul VI suppressed Latin in the liturgy after the Council, and they are even more characteristic of his liberal psychology. After restating all the advantages of Latin: a sacred language, an unchanging language, a universal language, he calls, in the name of adaptation, for the “sacrifice” of Latin, admitting at the same time that it will be a great loss for the Church. Here are his very words, reported by Louis Salleron in his book La nouvelle messe [The New Mass] (Nouvelles Editions Latines, 2nd ed., 1976, p. 83)

On March 7, 1965, he said to the faithful gathered in St. Peter’s square,

It is a sacrifice that the Church makes in renouncing Latin, a sacred language, beautiful, expressive, and elegant. The Church sacrifices centuries of tradition and unity of language in the name of an ever-growing desire for universality.

The ‘sacrifice’ of which he spoke became a reality with the Instruction Tres abhinc annos (May 4, 1967) which established the use of the vernacular for reciting the Canon of the Mass aloud.

This ‘sacrifice,’ in Paul VI’s mind, seems to have been final. He explained it once again on November 26, 1969, when he presented the new rite of the Mass:

The principal language of the Mass will no longer be Latin, but the vernacular. For anyone familiar with the beauty and power of Latin, its aptness for expression of the sacred, it will certainly be a great sacrifice to see it replaced by the vernacular. We are losing the language of centuries of Christianity, we become as intruders, reduced to the profane in the literary domain of expressing the sacred. We lose, too, the greater part of the admirable, incomparable wealth of art and spirituality contained in Gregorian chant. It is with good reason, then, that we experience regret and even distress.

Everything therefore should have dissuaded Paul VI from imposing this ‘sacrifice’ and persuaded him to maintain the use of Latin. On the contrary, deriving a singularly masochistic pleasure from his ‘distress,’ he chose to act against the principles he had just set forth, and decreed the ‘sacrifice’ in the name of promoting understanding of prayer, a specious argument that was only a modernist pretext.

Never has liturgical Latin been an obstacle to the conversion of infidels or to their education as Christians. Quite the opposite: the simple peoples of Africa and Asia loved Gregorian chant and the one sacred language, the sign of their affiliation to Catholicism. And experience shows that where Latin was not imposed by missionaries of the Latin Church, there the seeds of future schism were planted.

Paul VI followed these remarks with this contradictory pronouncement:

The solution seems banal and prosaic, but it is good, because it is human and apostolic. The understanding of prayer is more precious than the dilapidated silks in which it has been royally clad.  More precious is the participation of the people, the people of today who want us to speak clearly, intelligibly, in words that can be translated into their secular tongue. If the noble Latin language cuts us off from children, from youth, from the world of work and business, if it is an opaque screen instead of a transparent crystal, would we fishers of men do well to maintain its exclusive use in the language of prayer and religion?

Alas, what mental confusion. Who prevents me from praying in my own tongue? But liturgical prayer is not private prayer; it is the prayer of the whole Church.  Moreover, another lamentable lack of distinction is present: the liturgy is not a teaching addressed to the faithful, but the worship the Christian people address to God. Catechism is one thing, and the liturgy is another. The point is not that we “speak clearly” to the people assembled in the church, but rather that these people may praise God in the most beautiful, most sacred, and most solemn manner possible. “Praying to God with beauty” was St. Pius X’s liturgical maxim. How right he was!


You see, the liberal mind is conflicted and confused, anguished and contradictory. Such a mind was Paul VI’s. Louis Salleron explained it very well when he described Paul VI’s physical countenance, saying “he was two-faced.” Not duplicitous—this word expresses a malicious intent to deceive which was not present in Paul VI. No, he had a double personality, and the contrast between the sides of face expressed this: traditionalist in words, then modernist in action; Catholic in his premises and principles, and then progressive in his conclusions; not condemning what he should have, and then condemning what he ought to have preserved.

This psychological weakness afforded an ideal opportunity for the enemies of the Church. While maintaining a Catholic face (or half-face, if you like) he contradicted tradition without hesitation, he encouraged change, baptized mutation and progress, and followed the lead of the enemies of the Church, who egged him on.

Did not the Izvestia, official newspaper of the Communist Soviet party, demand from Paul VI my condemnation and that of Econe in the name of Vatican II? And the Italian Communist paper L’Unita followed suit after the sermon I gave in Lille on August 29, 1976; furious because of my attack on Communism, they devoted an entire page to their demand. “Be aware,” they wrote, addressing Paul VI, “be aware of the danger Lefebvre represents, and continue the magnificent approach initiated through the ecumenism of Vatican II.” With friends like these, who needs enemies? This is a sad illustration of a rule we have already established: liberalism leads from compromise to treason.


The psychology of a liberal pope is easy enough to imagine, but difficult to bear! Indeed, such a leader—be it Paul VI or John Paul II—puts us in a very delicate position.

In practice, our attitude must base itself on a preliminary distinction, made necessary by the extraordinary circumstances of a pope won over by liberalism.  This is the distinction we must make: when the pope says something in keeping with tradition, we follow him; when he opposes the Faith, or encourages opposition of the Faith, or allows something to be done that attacks the Faith, then we cannot follow him. The fundamental reason for this is that the Church, the pope, and the hierarchy must serve the Faith. They do not make the Faith, they must serve it. The Faith cannot be made; it is immutable, and must be transmitted.

This is why papal teachings intended to validate actions opposed to tradition cannot be followed. In following, we would participate in the self-destruction of the Church, in the destruction of our Faith.

It is clear that what is unceasingly demanded of us—complete submission to the pope, complete submission to the Council, acceptance of the entire liturgical reform—is in opposition to tradition, in the sense that the pope, the Council and the reforms lead us far from tradition, as the facts show more overwhelmingly every year. Therefore, to demand these things is to require us to participate in the downfall of the Faith. Impossible! The martyrs died to defend the Faith; we have the example of Christians imprisoned, tortured, sent to concentration camps for the Faith. One grain of incense offered to an idol, and their lives would have been safe. I was advised once, “Sign, sign saying you accept everything, and then you can continue as before!” No! One does not play games with the Faith.

Footnote

1 English translation taken from the Vatican’s website




Liberal Catholics

5/11/2013

 
"Catholic liberals have kept on saying that their will for Tradition is equivalent to that of most intransigent persons. The compromise they have sought is not theoretical but practical....They always come back to this reasoning. They are telling us: 'See, we are shepherds. We accept the reality, we are concrete people, we are practical!' But what is this practice? The practice is the implementation of principles with the help of the virtue of prudence, it is nothing other than that.

"What is the practice when the principles are missing?...'Yes, yes, yes, we agree, we share the same Credo, etcetera. Yes, but when we find ourselves in the world, then one must adjust oneself to the level of the others, one must live with the others, if not, you will never convert others.' To say this is a total error!...Popes have perceived the danger of those Catholics that are elusive because they claim, when one wants to corner them: 'No, no, I agree.' But afterwards, they come to terms with the enemies of the Church...they are traitors...more dreadful than avowed enemies...they divide the minds, destroy unity, weaken strengths that, instead, should be all together coordinated against the enemy...You will be told that it is you who cause division, but it is not possible to divide when one abides in the Truth...those who divide are those who try to diminish the Truth in order to find agreement with everyone...Those who have it wrong must convert to the Truth and should not try to find common grounds between Truth and error..." (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Conference, Econe, Jan. 1974).

The Role of Women in the Church

5/10/2013

 
Sister Katherine Maria The "role of women in the church" issue, in its demanding spirit of equality, is simply wrong! The concept of a struggle between men and women in their capacity to serve God is generated because we have confused the standards of the world – which is a natural existence, with the standards of the Church – which is a supernatural institution. The two spheres are diametrically opposed! Our Lord Himself illustrated this many times in Scripture. Over and over again Christ rebuked His disciples who were always yielding to natural ambition rather than supernatural. "Do you want to be first?" He asked, "Then be last. Do you want to rule?...then serve."

What is the role of women in the Church? What is the role of men in the Church? Is it to gain position, power, or a chance to display their natural ability? Father Frederick Faber summed up the answer to these questions by saying, "Holiness is the thing." Holiness is the role par excellence of a true follower of Christ, man or woman. It is the one thing lacking in the Church today on a grand scale. Where are our holy leaders and our saintly examples especially in these troubled times? If women (or men for that matter) desire a position in the structure of the Church more than personal holiness, then they miss the whole point of the Church.

The Church is not a modem or an outlet for self-gratification, it is rather the living safeguard of Christ's teaching. It is not an end in itself but a means to our true end in eternity. To reduce the divine institution of the Catholic Church and its mission to a bureaucratic structure filled with worldly achievements is to return to the days of the Pharisees.

There was no mincing of words when Jesus spoke to the multitudes and His disciples concerning the Pharisees. He admonished His followers not to imitate their ambition and denounced divers "woes" against them for their hypocrisy and blindness. "All their works they do to be seen by men...and they love the first places at feasts and the first chairs in the synagogues and salutations in the market place." How can anyone who intends to follow Christ betray these same ambitions, quibbling for his role in the Church? Should we not rather imitate Christ if we desire to serve Him? How is this possible if we disregard His words which we should imprint upon our hearts as a rule of life? He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. (Matt 9:23.11) Then Jesus added to this list of qualifications, the absolute fundamental insistence that: "If any man (or woman) will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For he (or she) that shall save his life shall lose it: and he (or she) that shall lose his life for My sake shall find it. For what does it profit a man (or woman) if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul?" (Matt 16:24) Is it not obvious that promoting the role of the Church in society through self-abasement and personal holiness is the role Christ intended for His true followers?

The frustrated women headlining current media reviews with their demands for ordination are basically devoid of inner peace which is so essential to holiness. They hide their lust for notoriety behind a cry for equality, their desire for power is called liberation and their sense of pride – "to be like unto God"- is called education. They are sadly unaware or have forgotten that a vocation is a life-affair of service compelled by a desire to imitate our Crucified Savior. They have lost all sense of what the priesthood means, or they would be ashamed of their demands. It is not a job or an ecclesiastical promotion- its attainment is not achieved by a "success-drive."

In previous years women responded to the call of a vocation by serving the sick in hospitals, teaching in schools, and mothering the orphans. Today almost every vestige of the old established religious orders is disappearing, as they close down one by one. Yet, at the same time, the remaining vocal elements are clamoring for ordination. The simple Gospel concept of sacrificing oneself, dying to oneself to become all for Jesus has been obliterated in the minds of the ambitious. The false god of Self-worth has blinded its victims and driven them into a frenzy of "rights" and demands.

The devil has many pomps and clever tricks to ensnare the unaware, or the selfish. But Truth cannot be obscured by sophistries for long, and Christ Himself, Who is Truth Eternal deemed it necessary to reveal the height of His triumph in the lowliness of His beginning, which took place at a simple fiat (let it be) of the Virgin Mary. Need we look for a more fulfilling role of woman in the Church than in the very Mother of God, the little girl of Nazareth who unselfishly yielded to the eternal plans of God the Father? "My soul does magnify the Lord," she said in the few words of hers recorded in Holy Scripture. (Luke 1:26) Her soul does not compete with God or man; it is like a convex crystal through which the power and love of God grow because it is not obscured by the film of self-importance. "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior", she continued. Her rejoicing was not in herself or her position; she did not confuse the means with the end. She was absorbed in God and He became absorbed in her because He has regarded the humility of His handmaid.

Why all this fighting over the "role" of women in the Church? It is an already established fact, for anyone with spiritual insight, that Mary, our leading role model, is always within prayer reach to guide us in our quest for holiness, and holiness is our role in the Church. She, the frail "virgin-mother," is our mentor. She, unordained, un-college educated, alone amongst women, towers threateningly over the would-be triumph of the devil, and it is she who will crush his head with her heel, for it is through her and all that follow her example that "God has showed the might in His arm: He has scattered the proud in the conceit of their hearts, because He has exalted the humble." Let us follow her to participate in the role Christ has intended for us in the Church, and not make one to our own liking.



    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.