Post by Admin on Dec 18, 2019 12:12:15 GMT
Is neutrality in the fight of Faith possible?
December 16, 2019 | Adapted and translated [via Google Chrome] from here
Some traditional Catholics have chosen the side of neutrality in the fight that currently opposes Fidelity and pervasive liberalism within the SSPX. Does it make sense? Is it pleasing to God after all?
The history of the Catholic Church has never been a long, quiet river. Historically, Catholics have had to choose a side to follow the way of God. This is never the easiest even if it is the only true one. Our Lord has warned us that his path is that of the Cross.
Any crisis implies a choice and not to choose is also to choose a side, which is not the right one.
It is the same today for Catholics in the Conciliar crisis. We must not only groan before this horrible apostasy from the Roman clergy, but also and above all make choices not to follow this clergy in the ways of perdition.
The crisis that the SSPX is currently going through is again a matter of making a choice. This crisis is rooted in the false conception of the Church that Bishop Fellay has spread in all his conferences and in his relations with Rome since the year 2000 and which governs the fundamental orientation of the current SSPX. For Bishop Fellay and those who succeed him now, the current Rome is the Catholic Church in its own right, it would only be partially contaminated by a modernist spirit that should be overturned by accepting from it what would be good or tolerable. Archbishop Lefebvre said, on the contrary, that this church is another church. It remains "materially" Catholic but all its action is Conciliar. It is in this sense that the New Cod [of Canon Law], which is the expression of this new ecclesial form, is the most revolutionary and destructive element of the Conciliar Church. Because the spirit of a city goes through its law.
The choice of Catholics is therefore simple (in theory): you have to cut with this Conciliar Church, as Archbishop Lefebvre did and said in 1988, so as not to enter it, even under the illusory pretext of doing good because reason to be of this Conciliar Church is to make Conciliar every Catholic who integrates into it. Even if it's on one point (Canon Law for example). The rejection of the New Code will therefore be the most tangible element of the rejection of this neo-church. And therefore the marriages and confessions that take place within this framework.
For a Catholic who has understood the issue, who knows the value and the power of a hierarchy contaminated by error, is it conceivable that no choice follows this conviction? Can we say to remain neutral in such a case?
Neutrality does not exist. It is the choice of waiting or refusing the combat which serves the enemy. Mr. René Viviani, Freemason Minister, one of the sinister founders of the secular school in France with Jules Ferry, already admitted, regarding the neutral school, that this term was "a necessary lie" to lure Catholics. Necessary lie that he had to forge, he said, in the midst of the storm of school reforms to avoid reactions (Read his edifying confession published in the communist newspaper Humanity: gallica.bnf.fr/ark: /12148/bpt6k2503554.langEN) .
Therefore, if a congregation or a priest used this argument to invite you to support his work ... remember the sentence of this Viviani.
To conclude, it is said that Jean Vaquié, learning of the election of Archbishop Fellay in 1994, cried. He said that this man had understood nothing about the revolution. He no doubt saw, with his mystical gaze, the disasters that would happen in the rescue work that Archbishop Lefebvre had so patiently built. Prophetic vision?