HONOR AND GLORY TO BP. WILLIAMSON
Dom Thomas Aquinas
September 3, Feast of St. Pius X 2012
In this dramatic moment in the life of the Holy Church, moment in which the Faith is most gravely threatened, an episcopal voice rises and confirms the faithful in the faith of their Baptism. Whose is this voice but of the bishop persecuted, slandered, accused of rebellion, etc., etc., etc.? And why is he persecuted, slandered, accused? Precisely because he defends the Faith and this crime has no forgiveness in the modern world. The modern world accepts everything; it even accepts the Tradition, as long as the Tradition accepts the modern world. The modern world is a highly concentrated solvent. It accepts everything it can dissolve, except the indissoluble Catholic Faith, except the integral, pure and immaculate Catholic doctrine, and this is what is at stake in this dramatic moment for the Tradition. Are we going to divide the Faith as Solomon proposed the two women vying for a child? The modernist Rome says: "Yes, let's divide the Faith, let's do a bargain. Why not?" Bishop Williamson says: " No, non possumus", and we are with him: "Non possumus!". Like Saint Peter we say to the Pharisees: "We cannot stop preaching in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! Judge yourselves whether it is better to obey God than men." The child must live, as in the judgment of Solomon. In the present case, it is not the child who should live, but the mother, Our Mother the Holy Church. To divide Her by giving a piece to the modernists and a piece the traditionalists? Never!
For all these reasons we say and proclaim: "Honor and glory to Bishop Williamson and to all the priests who defend the faith without compromise with the enemies of the Catholic Faith." Some may be scandalized by the mere fact of speaking about enemies in this terrible battle. If this is your case, dear reader, remember that the Church here on earth is called militant, because it militates against three cruel enemies, as states the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which are the devil, the world and the flesh. Also remember the prayer: "By the sign of the Holy Cross, deliver us, from our enemies, O Lord our God." Remember also what says St. Pius X, who we celebrate today. The enemies of the Church are currently in the veins of the same Church.
These enemies are in Rome, unfortunately, this Rome who wants to make a deal with the Tradition, i.e., the Rome modernist which wants to make a deal with the eternal Rome. To what end? Even if it is not known the intention of the heart of Benedict XVI, it is not difficult to know how all this will end if this agreement (whose bitter fruits are already being felt, even before completion) takes place. The fruit, which already can be seen, is the silence of the Tradition, but as St. Gregory the Great said: "The Church would rather die than be silent." Then She, the real mother, won't shut up, will not do this shameful agreement, but will continue to speak, preach and work for the salvation of their children. This is what the brave priests are doing, this is what is doing Bp. Williamson. For this reason we say: "Honor and glory to Bp. Williamson, successor of the apostles and confessor of the Faith"
Honor and glory to the Bishop who administered 99 confirmations in eight days and directed his apostolic word 15 times to different audiences, which together represent more than 300 people in this vast Brazil, evangelized by the Portuguese and now by a Bishop of the former "island of saints".
Our monastery of Santa Cruz and the faithful of Rio, Salvador, Vitoria, Campo Grande (where a connection delay prevented the departure of Bp. Williamson), Maringá and Nova Friburgo thank the solicitude of a true Archbishop Lefebvre's son, faithful to his teachings , who came in to confirm, not only with the sacrament, but also with his deep understanding of revealed doctrine, of the modern errors and of medicine for today's illness, among which stands out with a special glow the Holy Rosary, which Bp. Williamson recommends to pray complete every day. May the Virgin Mary obtain us the grace to watch and pray to avoid falling into the temptation of agreements and to defeat the infernal serpent that wants to destroy the Tradition.
English version seen here:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?s=830a28e0677009addd74c02fba9cf7fe&showtopic=10756
Spanish can be seen here:
http://nonpossummus.foroactivo.mx/t180-honor-y-gloria-a-monsenor-williamson-por-dom-tomas-de-aquino
And Portuguese here:
http://spessantotomas.blogspot.com/2012/09/honra-e-gloria-dom-williamson.html
|
|
Fr. Jahir, Monastery Salvador, Brazil on the Deal with Rome
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letter of Arsenius, OSB (Published by Dominicans of Avrille)
Considering ...
(Sel de la Terre, No. 81, Summer 2012)
by Arsenius
1) That Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to Dom Gerard when he wanted to make an agreement with the modernist authorities in Rome. An agreement about which Dom Gerard said that Rome gave everything and asked nothing;
2) That the same Archbishop Lefebvre said after the consecrations that from that time, he would sign an agreement with Rome only if the Roman authorities agreed with several Church documents condemning modern errors;
3) That, in addition, Archbishop Lefebvre had repented of having signed a memorandum of understanding with the Vatican for permission to consecrate bishops, because he concluded that the intentions of the Roman authorities were not good;
4) That, later, Archbishop Lefebvre told the future Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, that he could not agree with him, and that we, the traditionalists, we were trying to Christianize the world while he, the Cardinal, and the other progressivists were working to de-Christianize the world;
5) That the Fraternity of St. Peter, who had received from Rome the right to celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively, was subsequently forced to accept the fact that its members can also celebrate the New Mass;
6) That Archbishop Lefebvre said that he did not agree that we should place ourselves under the authority of those who do not profess the faith in its integrity;
7) That in time of war, to take care to follow the positive laws (for example, traffic laws) may be unwise and, in some cases, can lead to suicide;
8) That experience shows that very few know how to go back when the Roman authorities do not keep their promises (see the case of the Fraternity of St. Peter);
9) That being "reconciled" with Rome produces the result of no longer considering the Roman authorities (progressives) as enemies against whom we must fight;
10) That Archbishop Lefebvre said that progressives are similar to those infected with a contagious disease, and should therefore be avoided so as not to become sick like them.
11) That in all parts of the world the faithful are in a "state of necessity", which gives them the right to appeal to priests who hold to integrally Catholic doctrine, and also to receive the sacraments and assist at the mass according to traditional rites, and that priests have a duty of charity to go to help these faithful, even without the permission of the local bishop.
We judge ...
1) That if Archbishop Lefebvre was still alive, he would make no agreement with the Roman authorities, even if they offered it to us, and even if they asked nothing from us, unless the authorities first condemned the modern errors that have crept into the bosom of the Church, and which have been condemned by previous Popes;
2) That even today Archbishop Lefebvre still could not agree with Benedict XVI, because he still has the same thinking that he had as a cardinal;
3) That we cannot trust the promises made by men who withdraw the guarantees that they had previously given in favor of tradition;
4) That, as Archbishop Lefebvre himself had judged, we must not put ourselves under obedience to those who do not profess the faith in its integrity;
5) That in the midst of this terrible war in which we find ourselves (between the Holy Church and modernism, between truth and error, between light and darkness), to seek the regularization of our situation is a reckless act and suicidal: it is giving ourselves to the enemy;
6) That it would be, in a way, tempting God, by putting ourselves in a situation that probably:
a) will lead us to concede important points when the progressive Roman authorities ask it of us;
b) will stop us from treating certain authorities as enemies to fight against;
c) will leave us to be "contaminated" by progressivism;
7) That it would be a mistake to limit our field of action to those places for which we would given permission by the Roman authorities or by the diocesan bishops, and not be able to go to the faithful who call us, because in such a place, we might not have official permission to exercise the priestly ministry, because it would not considered to be a grave and general "state of necessity."
Objection ...
One could object that Archbishop Lefebvre knew very well everything we have said and yet, on several occasions he expressed a desire that the Society’s situation be regularized before the Roman authorities.
We answer ...
... that even if this were true, nonetheless, from May 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre no longer expressed that desire and, on the contrary, since that time he took the position that all agreements with the Roman authorities should be preceded by a profession of faith by Rome regarding the great anti-liberal documents of the Magisterium, such as Pascendi, Quanta cura, etc.. He held that new position until his death.
The motive that led to this change was the fact that he could clearly see that neo-modernist Rome has no intention of protecting or supporting Catholic Tradition.
Conclusion
Legal union with Rome? Yes, but in the integrity of the Catholic faith, outside which there is no salvation, and with the freedom to fulfill our duties towards God and neighbor.
No ordinations in France for Truly Traditional seminarians, Summer 2012
Considering ...
(Sel de la Terre, No. 81, Summer 2012)
by Arsenius
1) That Archbishop Lefebvre was opposed to Dom Gerard when he wanted to make an agreement with the modernist authorities in Rome. An agreement about which Dom Gerard said that Rome gave everything and asked nothing;
2) That the same Archbishop Lefebvre said after the consecrations that from that time, he would sign an agreement with Rome only if the Roman authorities agreed with several Church documents condemning modern errors;
3) That, in addition, Archbishop Lefebvre had repented of having signed a memorandum of understanding with the Vatican for permission to consecrate bishops, because he concluded that the intentions of the Roman authorities were not good;
4) That, later, Archbishop Lefebvre told the future Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, that he could not agree with him, and that we, the traditionalists, we were trying to Christianize the world while he, the Cardinal, and the other progressivists were working to de-Christianize the world;
5) That the Fraternity of St. Peter, who had received from Rome the right to celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively, was subsequently forced to accept the fact that its members can also celebrate the New Mass;
6) That Archbishop Lefebvre said that he did not agree that we should place ourselves under the authority of those who do not profess the faith in its integrity;
7) That in time of war, to take care to follow the positive laws (for example, traffic laws) may be unwise and, in some cases, can lead to suicide;
8) That experience shows that very few know how to go back when the Roman authorities do not keep their promises (see the case of the Fraternity of St. Peter);
9) That being "reconciled" with Rome produces the result of no longer considering the Roman authorities (progressives) as enemies against whom we must fight;
10) That Archbishop Lefebvre said that progressives are similar to those infected with a contagious disease, and should therefore be avoided so as not to become sick like them.
11) That in all parts of the world the faithful are in a "state of necessity", which gives them the right to appeal to priests who hold to integrally Catholic doctrine, and also to receive the sacraments and assist at the mass according to traditional rites, and that priests have a duty of charity to go to help these faithful, even without the permission of the local bishop.
We judge ...
1) That if Archbishop Lefebvre was still alive, he would make no agreement with the Roman authorities, even if they offered it to us, and even if they asked nothing from us, unless the authorities first condemned the modern errors that have crept into the bosom of the Church, and which have been condemned by previous Popes;
2) That even today Archbishop Lefebvre still could not agree with Benedict XVI, because he still has the same thinking that he had as a cardinal;
3) That we cannot trust the promises made by men who withdraw the guarantees that they had previously given in favor of tradition;
4) That, as Archbishop Lefebvre himself had judged, we must not put ourselves under obedience to those who do not profess the faith in its integrity;
5) That in the midst of this terrible war in which we find ourselves (between the Holy Church and modernism, between truth and error, between light and darkness), to seek the regularization of our situation is a reckless act and suicidal: it is giving ourselves to the enemy;
6) That it would be, in a way, tempting God, by putting ourselves in a situation that probably:
a) will lead us to concede important points when the progressive Roman authorities ask it of us;
b) will stop us from treating certain authorities as enemies to fight against;
c) will leave us to be "contaminated" by progressivism;
7) That it would be a mistake to limit our field of action to those places for which we would given permission by the Roman authorities or by the diocesan bishops, and not be able to go to the faithful who call us, because in such a place, we might not have official permission to exercise the priestly ministry, because it would not considered to be a grave and general "state of necessity."
Objection ...
One could object that Archbishop Lefebvre knew very well everything we have said and yet, on several occasions he expressed a desire that the Society’s situation be regularized before the Roman authorities.
We answer ...
... that even if this were true, nonetheless, from May 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre no longer expressed that desire and, on the contrary, since that time he took the position that all agreements with the Roman authorities should be preceded by a profession of faith by Rome regarding the great anti-liberal documents of the Magisterium, such as Pascendi, Quanta cura, etc.. He held that new position until his death.
The motive that led to this change was the fact that he could clearly see that neo-modernist Rome has no intention of protecting or supporting Catholic Tradition.
Conclusion
Legal union with Rome? Yes, but in the integrity of the Catholic faith, outside which there is no salvation, and with the freedom to fulfill our duties towards God and neighbor.
No ordinations in France for Truly Traditional seminarians, Summer 2012
