Post by Admin on Jul 17, 2018 0:53:13 GMT
Catechism of timely truths: The rallies (seen by Archbishop Lefebvre), abbot FM. Chautard - July 8, 2018
Translated from the French, here:
1) What are the rallies ?
The so-called "rallies" are the communities, the priests and the faithful who first chose to defend Tradition, then from the coronations of June 30, 1988 and the fulminated excommunication against Archbishop Lefebvre , Mgr. Mayer and the four sacred [consecrated SSPX] bishops have chosen to become effectively dependent on the current hierarchy while retaining the traditional liturgy. They therefore rallied to the conciliar Church.
By extension, the term "rallies" refers to the communities, priests and faithful who retain the traditional liturgy but accept the main conciliar errors as well as the full validity and legitimacy of the novus ordo of Paul VI and the sacraments promulgated and published by Paul VI.
"Dom Gerard, in his declaration, states what is given to him and agrees to put himself under the obedience of modernist Rome, which remains fundamentally anti-traditional" (1).
2) Is the word "ralliés" not pejorative?
Yes, the word "ralliés" is pejorative because it expresses a betrayal of Tradition.
3) How did the rallyers betray Tradition?
The rallies betrayed the Tradition because many of them, having begun to serve it, stopped defending it, then abandoned it, gradually apologized for conciliar errors, and opposed Tradition and its defenders,
"They betray us. They now give their hand to those who demolish the Church, the liberals, the modernists "(2).
4) Why do we say that the rallies have stopped defending Tradition?
It is said that the rallies have stopped defending the Tradition because, since 1988, they no longer denounce the conciliar errors (harmfulness of the New Mass, the new Code of Canon Law, interreligious dialogue, religious freedom, etc. ( 3)).
"When they say they did not give up, it's wrong. They let go of the possibility of countering Rome. They can not say anything anymore. They must be quiet given the favors they have been given. It is now impossible for them to denounce the errors of the conciliar Church "(4).
5) How did the rallies gradually apologize for conciliar errors?
The rallies have gradually apologized for the conciliar errors by supporting unreservedly the legitimacy and the validity of the rite of the new Mass, defending the doctrine of religious freedom, as Father Basile du Barroux who published a advocacy in six volumes, legitimizing the meeting of Assisi and interreligious dialogue, as the superior of the Fraternity of St. Peter, accepting to be governed by the new code of canon law , by not publicly refusing the recent reforms of the Pope on the annulment of marriages, accepting the canonization of John Paul II who implemented the conciliar reforms, or concelebrating the new Mass as Dom Gerard (†), Bishop Wach or Bishop Rifan .
"From the point of view of ideas. They saw very slowly and finally admitted the false ideas of the Council, because Rome granted them some favors for Tradition. This is a very dangerous situation "(5).
6) How did the rallies condemn Tradition and its defenders?
The adherents have condemned the Tradition in three ways: first by defending positions contrary to this Tradition, secondly by serving as bait to attract the true faithful of Tradition in a position of compromise; third, by accusing its defenders - mainly the priests and faithful of the SSPX - of being excommunicated and schismatic (6). Several marriages celebrated in the SSPX have been canceled for lack of canonical form at the request of priests rallied.
"All that has been granted to them has been granted to them only in order to ensure that all those who adhere to or are bound to the Society leave it and submit to Rome" (7).
7) Is not this unfair towards young Ecclesia Dei communities or members who entered these communities after 1988?
It is not unfair to say that all Ecclesia Dei communities (that is, the communities that have rallied(8)) betray Tradition because they officially present themselves as traditional when they are not really and deceive. thus the faithful and the Tradition.
God alone judges the intentions of hearts and there are certainly many zealous and pious priests in these communities. But by joining these communities, they assume responsibility for the doctrinal positions of these communities that are their own.
8) Do the rallies not defend the everlasting mass?
The rallies defend the mass of always but they defend it badly, because to defend well the mass of always, it is necessary: first, to celebrate it and to honor it - what they do; secondly, to refuse and denounce the new Mass which opposes the Mass of always - which they do not do; thirdly, to unite the traditional Mass with the full and whole doctrine of the Church - which they do not do.
Finally "the question of liturgy and sacraments is very important, but it is not the most important. The most important is that of faith "(9).
"Rome now seems accessible to [the idea of] to say the old mass, the Catholic mass and therefore there should be no problem for us. But this is to put us in a contradiction, because at the same time that Rome gives for example to the Fraternity Saint-Pierre (...) the authorization to say the mass of always, at the same time, they make sign a profession of faith in which is inscribed the Council, in which we must admit the spirit of the Council. (...) How to want now the mass of always, by accepting the spirit which destroys this mass of always? It is to place oneself in a complete contradiction "(10).
9) How do the rallies justify their rallying to modernist Rome?
The rallies justify their rallying to modernist Rome by invoking the hand extended by Rome, the obligation to obey the laws and the legitimate authorities of the Church (11), the need to belong to the visible Church (12), the possibility of working better for Tradition within the Church and the schism of the Sacres [Consecrations] of June 30, 1988.
10) What should we think of the hand extended by Rome?
The hand extended by Rome was not given for the real good of Tradition in the Church but to lead progressively the traditionalists to conciliar errors. It was a tactic.
"On reflection, it is clear to us that the purpose of colloquia and reconciliation is to reintegrate us into the conciliar Church, the only Church to which you referred in catechisms. We thought you were giving us the means to continue and develop the works of Tradition. "(13).
"What Rome now gives in favor of tradition is only a purely political, diplomatic gesture to force rallies. But this is not a conviction in the benefits of Tradition. "
11) What should one think of the obligation to obey the laws and the legitimate authorities of the Church?
Every Catholic is bound to obey the laws and legitimate authorities of the Church precisely as these laws and authorities are legitimate, that is to say, in the service of the common good.
On the other hand, every Catholic is obliged to oppose illegitimate laws and orders even prescribed by legitimate authorities. However, if the FSSPX does not question the legitimacy of the ecclesiastical authorities, it rejects that of the laws and orders of conciliar inspiration, as the whole (and not the entirety) of the norms of the new code of canon law, by example.
"There are those who are sick to think that we must oppose Rome. They do not agree. Well, they did not really see the problem of the liberal invasion in Rome. (...) They may have only one sentimental faith, those who hesitate. They do not have the doctrinal meaning of the magisterium, of the Church of all times, of Tradition, of the Catholic faith. They say: 'We do not quite agree, but we can not separate from the pope. We prefer a legal, canonical, regular union with the ecclesiastical authorities. We can not remain indefinitely separated from Roman authorities and bishops. It is not possible. But, you'll see, we're going to keep Tradition. We will do this, we will do that. We do not want to be fooled. All those who have left us and said that, have all let go. They could not bear to be too separated from ecclesiastical authorities "(14).
12) Is the Society of St. Pius X and the friendly communities outside the visible Church?
"This visible Church history of Dom Gerard and Madiran is childish. It is incredible that we can speak of a Church visible to the conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church that we are trying to represent and continue "(15).
"Where is the visible Church? The visible Church is recognizable by the signs she has always given for her visibility: she is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. (...) where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more in the official Church (it is not the visible Church, it is the official Church) or at home, in what we represent, who we are?
If there is still a visibility of the Church today, it is thanks to you. These signs are no longer found in others. There is no longer any unity of faith among them, but it is faith that is the basis of all the visibility of the Church. Catholicity is faith one in space. Apostolicity is faith one in time and holiness is the fruit of faith, which is concretized in souls by the grace of God, by the grace of the sacraments.
It is absolutely wrong to think of ourselves as if we were not part of the visible Church. [...] it is wrong to equate the official church and the visible church."(17)
13) Is it true that it is easier to work for Tradition within the Church?
No that's not true ; first, because the traditionalists are not outside the Church; secondly, because the defense of Tradition presupposes the prevention of conciliar contagion; thirdly, because the profession of faith presupposes a clear distinction of positions that would be undermined by official collaboration.
Would it not be (...) in the plan of Providence, that the Catholic Tradition of the Church is not integrated into the pluralism of the conciliar Church, as long as it defiles the honor of the Catholic Church and offends both his unity and his visibility? "(18)
"These are things that are easy to say. To put oneself within the Church, what does that mean? And first of all, what church are we talking about? If it is the conciliar Church, we who have fought against it for 20 years because we want the Catholic Church, we would return to this conciliar Church so as to make it Catholic. It's a total illusion "(19)
" Renewal can now only be achieved by bishops free to revive Christian faith and virtue through the means Our Lord has entrusted to His Church for the sanctification of priests and the faithful. Only an environment entirely free of modern errors and modern manners can allow this renewal. This milieu is the milieu that visited Cardinal Gagnon and Monseigneur Perl , a community of deeply Christian families, with many children, and from whom come many excellent vocations "(20)
14) Is it true that the seals of June 30, 1988 are a schism?
Schism is a refusal to obey in principle the authority of the Holy Father. However, the seals of June 30, 1988 do not contain this desire. The seals of 1988, on the contrary, demonstrate the fidelity of the SSPX to the Apostolic See despite its errors . One of the greatest marks of fidelity to the Pope is not to follow him by false obedience in his mistakes but to divert him as much as possible.
15) Is it at least true that following the Brotherhood [SSPX] leads to schism?
There is obviously a danger of tending to schism by refraining from submitting to the pontifical authority imbued with its errors, by taking the habit of acting independently of the pope.
"There would be a danger of schism if the bishops who were crowned by Archbishop Lefebvre were to be heads of autonomous churches (or autocephalous, as the Orthodox say) "(21). Which is not the case.
However, this danger is much less than that of assimilating the conciliar errors inoculated by the ecclesiastical authorities.
"We must absolutely convince the faithful (...) that it is a danger to put themselves in the hands of the conciliar bishops and modernist Rome. This is the biggest danger that threatens them. If we have struggled for 20 years to avoid conciliar errors, it is not to put us now in the hands of those who profess them "(22).
"It seems to me opportune to analyze the action of the devil to weaken or nullify our work. The first temptation is to maintain good relations with the pope or the present bishops. Obviously it is more normal to be in harmony with the authorities than to be in conflict with them. The Brotherhood will then be accused of exaggerating the errors of the Second Vatican Council, of abusively criticizing the writings and deeds of the pope and bishops, of attaching itself with excessive rigidity to traditional rites and, ultimately, of presenting a tendency to sectarianism that will one day lead to schism. Once mentioned the word schism will be used as a scarecrow to scare seminarians and their families, leading them to abandon the Brotherhood all the more easily as priests, bishops and Rome itself claim to offer guarantees for a certain Tradition . "(23)
16) Does the position of the rallies lead to schism?
The position of the rallies leads to schism. For schism consists not only in refusing the primacy of the pope but in refusing Tradition. However, participating in this demolition of the Tradition participates in a schismatic attitude.
"This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church forever. This conciliar Church is schismatic because it took as its basis its updating of the principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church. The Church which affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic."(24)
" To the extent that the pope would depart from this tradition, he would become schismatic, he would break with the Church. (...) All those who cooperate in the application of this upheaval accept and adhere to this new conciliar church and enter schism."(25)
17) Are the sacraments of the rallied priests valid?
The sacraments of the rallied priests are valid to the extent that their ordinations are valid (for the sacraments which require the priesthood in the minister). However, one can have a doubt about the priesthood of clerics rallied who were ordained by bishops themselves doubtfully sacred [consecrated] because of ambiguous intentions and the new rite of episcopal consecrations (after 1968).
As for the confirmations given in the rallied communities, the doubt of the validity arises moreover with regard to the material used for the Holy Chrism. If the oil is not olive oil, as is now authorized and practiced, a doubt remains.
"All these seminarians who are present here, if tomorrow the good God reminds me, and it will no doubt be without delay, well, these seminarians who will they receive the sacrament of order? Conciliar bishops, whose sacraments are all doubtful, because we do not know exactly what their intentions are? It is not possible! "(26)
18) Can we go to the masses of the "rallies"?
No, one can not go to the masses of the rallies, first because the attendance at Mass is a public profession of the faith and this profession of faith is altered by the rallies, secondly because the attendance at the Mass. The result is a relativisation of doctrinal oppositions, and third, because such assistance develops perilous contacts for the faith.
"They say also: the mass is good, we go there. Yes, there is mass. She is good, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, the contacts before and after, which makes that slowly we change our ideas. So it's a danger and that's why I generally think it's a whole. We do not go to Mass alone, we go to a community.
There are obviously people who are attracted by the beautiful ceremonies that also go to Fontgombault, where we took the old mass. They are in a climate of ambiguity that I think is dangerous. Once one finds oneself in this atmosphere, submitted to the Vatican, ultimately submitted to the Council, one ends up becoming an ecumenist "(27).
19) What should be our attitude towards the rallies?
"[Dom Gerard] would like at the same time to keep the friendship and the support of the traditionalists, which is inconceivable. He accuses us of being "resistanceist" (28).
"We will no longer have anything to do with Barroux and we will warn all our faithful not to support a work henceforth in the hands of our enemies, enemies of our Lord and his universal Kingdom "(29).
"It is clear that all those who leave us or who have left us for sedevacantism or because they want to be subject to the current hierarchy of the Church while hoping to keep Tradition, we can no longer have any relationship with them. It is not possible. We say that we can not be subject to ecclesiastical authority and keep Tradition. They say the opposite. It's deceiving the faithful. (...) we want to be absolutely unscathed in terms of both sedevacantists and those who want to be subject to ecclesiastical authority "(30). "That we have contact with them to bring them back to Tradition, to convert them, if need be. This is good ecumenism. But to give the impression that one almost regrets, and that after all one would talk well with them, it is not possible "(31).
20) Should not we instead unite and make a common front?
The covenant of alliance was in force for 15 years. It was only to renew it on June 30 in doctrinal and prudential unanimity: it was indispensable to continue the fight for Christ the King. (...) The [Dom Gerard] who broke the sacred covenant is now calling for a new covenant "(32).
"I believe that what has helped to lose Dom Gerard is his concern to 'open to all those who are not with us and who can also enjoy the traditional liturgy'. We want to try, he said, to no longer have this critical, sterile, negative attitude. We will strive to open our doors to all those who might not have our ideas, but who would like the liturgy, so that they can also enjoy the benefits of monastic life. From that time I had worried about what I considered a very dangerous operation. It was the opening of the Church to the world and we must have noticed that it was the world that converted the Church. Dom Gerard was contaminated by this environment he received in his monastery "(33).
21) "Is not that a bit harsh?
But no. (...) It is not with gaiety of heart that we had difficulties with Rome. It's not for fun that we had to fight. We did it for principles, to keep the Catholic faith. And they agreed with us. They collaborated with us. And then suddenly we give up the real fight to ally ourselves with the demolishers on the pretext that we grant them some privileges. It is unacceptable. They have practically abandoned the fight of faith. They can no longer attack Rome "(34).
- Fr. François-Marie Chautard , priest of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X
Sources : The Chardonnet n ° 310 of July-August-September 2018 / The Latin Door of June 9, July 8, 2018
(1) Archbishop Lefebvre, letter dated August 18, 1988 to Father Thomas Aquinas
(2) Exclusive interview with Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter n ° 79 from January to February 1991
(3) For more information, see Combat of Faith No. 176 "Ecclesia Dei? Danger ! », March 2016 or to Abbé Gaudron, Catechism of the Catholic crisis in the Church , ed. Salt, last chapter.
(4) Exclusive interview with Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter n ° 79 from January to February 1991
(5) Exclusive interview with Mgr Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter n ° 79 from January to February 1991
(6) In his letter to the pope of July 8, 1988, Dom Gerard asked for his monks "the grace to be relieved of all censures and irregularities that we could have incurred because most of our priests were ordained by His Excellency Monseigneur Marcel Lefebvre, then suspended "Fideliter No. 67 January-February 1989, p. 10. "This is an additional reason for not accepting a schism and I said it publicly since the first threats to Ecône a year ago. (Rev. Bruno de Blignières, Christian Family, July 21, 1988)
(7) Exclusive interview with Mgr Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter n ° 79 from January to February 1991
(8) Under the control of the Roman commission founded by the eponymous motu proprio condemning the coronation of 1988.
(9) Exclusive interview with Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter n ° 79 from January to February 1991
(10) Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Fraternity, Fideliter No. 76 of July-August 1990, p. 11
(11) "All other things being equal, that is to say, faith and the sacraments being safe, it is better to be in accord with the laws of the Church than to contravene them." Dom Declaration Gérard, Fideliter n ° 65 september-october 1988, p. 18.
(12) "It is detrimental that the very Tradition of the Church is relegated out of its visible official perimeter. (...) The visibility of the Church is one of these essential characteristics "Declaration of Dom Gérard, Fideliter n ° 65 september-october 1988, p. 18.
(13) Archbishop Lefebvre, letter dated May 24, 1988 to Cardinal Ratzinger
(14) Exclusive interview with Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter n ° 79 from January to February 1991
(15) Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter No. 68 from March-April 1989, p. 13-14
(16) Exclusive interview with Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter No. 79 from July-August 1989, p. 6
(17) Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre , Ecône September 9, 1988
(18) Abbot Schmidberger, Fideliter No. 65 September-October 1988, p. 20
(19) Exclusive interview with Mgr Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter n ° 79 from July-August 1989, p. 6.
(20) Archbishop Lefebvre, letter of May 20, 1988 to Pope John Paul II
(21) Dom Gérard, sermon of August 2, 1987, Fideliter n ° 67 January-February 1989, p. 5
(22) Exclusive interview with Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter No. 79 from July-August 1989, p. 13-14.
(23) Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Bishop de Galarreta in 1989
(24) Reflections, July 29, 1976, Itineraries , Wild Sentencing, No. 40.
(25) Archbishop Lefebvre, interview in Le Figaro on August 02, 1976
(26) Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon of the coronations
(27) Exclusive interview with Mgr Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter n ° 79 from January to February 1991
(28) Archbishop Lefebvre, letter dated August 18, 1988 to Father Thomas Aquinas
(29) Archbishop Lefebvre, letter dated August 18, 1988 to Father Thomas Aquinas
(30) Conference at Flavigny, December 1988, Fideliter No. 68, p. 16.
(31) The Church infiltrated by modernism , p. 139.
(32) Abbot Schmidberger, Fideliter No. 65 September-October 1988, p. 20
(33) Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter No. 66 of November-December 1988, p. 14-15
(34) Exclusive interview with Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre - Fideliter n ° 79 from January to February 1991