ruthy
New Member
Posts: 72 
|
Post by ruthy on Jan 25, 2020 14:57:14 GMT
After listening to Fr. Pfeiffer's latest sermons concerning the Chair of St. Peter, I hear Fr. Pfeiffer repeatedly saying, that all the bishops and priests are TRULY bishops and priests. I cannot recall Archbishop Lefebvre ever saying, the bishops and priests are TRULY bishops and priests. Let alone, repeating it, in sermon after sermon, but, there was doubt.
Question: If the conciliar bishops and priests are TRULY bishops and priests, then why conditionally re-ordain? Is there doubt??
It doesn't make sense to me, for a bishop or priest to be a truly a bishop or priest, but then conditionally re-ordain them. Conditionally re-ordaining is saying there is doubt. I don't see how Fr. Pfeiffer can say they are truly what they are and then say, we are going to conditionally re-ordain you.
Fr. Pfeiffer is paving his own path. Not following the path Archbishop Lefebvre already paved.
Fr. Hewko is just holding the line of Archbishop Lefebvre.
|
|
|
|
Post by hermenegild on Jan 25, 2020 16:03:14 GMT
I've listened to that Fr. Pfeiffer sermon too. He misappropriates the word doubtful into meaning invalid.
These are the same tricks they used at VII where new meanings were given to PUSH forward a particular AGENDA.
Good job pointing out the hypocrisy, ruthy! This is not the OLD Fr. Pfeiffer. The OLD Fr. Pfeiffer insisted on having Fr. Voigt reordained for example. I don't know this new Fr Pfeiffer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 25, 2020 23:30:18 GMT
After listening to Fr. Pfeiffer's latest sermons concerning the Chair of St. Peter, I hear Fr. Pfeiffer repeatedly saying, that all the bishops and priests are TRULY bishops and priests. I cannot recall Archbishop Lefebvre ever saying, the bishops and priests are TRULY bishops and priests. Let alone, repeating it, in sermon after sermon, but, there was doubt.
Question: If the conciliar bishops and priests are TRULY bishops and priests, then why conditionally re-ordain? Is there doubt??
It doesn't make sense to me, for a bishop or priest to be a truly a bishop or priest, but then conditionally re-ordain them. Conditionally re-ordaining is saying there is doubt. I don't see how Fr. Pfeiffer can say they are truly what they are and then say, we are going to conditionally re-ordain you.
Fr. Pfeiffer is paving his own path. Not following the path Archbishop Lefebvre already paved.
Fr. Hewko is just holding the line of Archbishop Lefebvre.
There is a doubt about all the New Rite Sacraments that were born out of the revolution that took place during and after Vatican II. We all know this. There is nothing new here.
Archbishop Lefebvre
"The union desired by these Liberal Catholics, a union between the Church and the Revolution and subversion is, for the Church, an adulterous union, adulterous. And that adulterous union can only produce bastards. And who are those bastards? They are our rites: the rite of the Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments-we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them. The priests coming out of the seminaries do not themselves know what they are." (Sermon at Lille, August 29, 1976) [How could Archbishop Lefebvre say these words if there was no doubt about the New Rites? Would he call them "bastard Sacraments" if they were free from doubt? No. It would be a gross error to denounce them as "bastard" if they were "true" Sacraments.]
- We must refuse to compromise with those who deny the divinity of Our Lord, or with any false ecumenism. We must fight against atheism and laicism in order to help Our Lord to reign over families and over society. We must protect the worship of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacraments instituted by Our Lord, practicing them according to the rites honored by twenty centuries of tradition.Thus we will properly honor Our Lord, and thus be assured of receiving His grace. ... It is because the novelties which have invaded the Church since the Council diminish the adoration and the honor due to Our Lord, and implicitly throw doubt upon His divinity, that we refuse them. These novelties do not come from the Holy Ghost, nor from His Church, but from those who are imbued with the spirit of Modernism, and with all the errors which convey this spirit, condemned with so much courage and energy by St. Pius X. ... The Church cannot content herself with doubtful sacraments nor with ambiguous teaching. Those who have introduced these doubts and this ambiguity are not disciples of the Church. Whatever their intentions may have been, they in fact worked against the Church. ... It is consoling to note that in the Catholic world, the sense of faith of the faithful rejects these novelties and attaches itself to Tradition. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, April 1980)
- Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre on the Necessity of Reordinations
Ecône, 28 Oct. 1988
Very dear Mr. Wilson,
Thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times. All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics. We are in the time of great apostasy. We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics. It is necessary everywhere in the world. ... We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ. ...Marcel Lefebvre
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.
All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.
This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever. The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation. That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity. 1974 Declaration
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais
“Clearly, we cannot accept this faked new rite of ordination that leaves doubts concerning the validity of numerous ordinations done according to the new rite. Thus this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we will of course faithfully continue to transmit the real and valid priesthood by the traditional priestly rite of ordination.” Questionable Ordinations in the Conciliar Church
Fr. Peter Scott
We must observe the same balance as Archbishop Lefebvre. On the one hand, it is our duty to avoid the excess of sedevacantism, which unreasonably denies the very validity and existence of the post-conciliar Church and its priesthood. On the other hand, however, we must likewise reject the laxist and liberal approach that does not take seriously the real doubts that can arise concerning the validity of priestly ordinations in the post-conciliar Church, failing to consider the enormous importance and necessity of a certainly valid priesthood ... Given the gravity of these issues, it is not even a slight doubt that is acceptable. Hence the duty of examining in each particular case the vernacular form of priestly ordination, the intention of the ordaining bishop, the rite of consecration of the ordaining bishop, and the intention of the consecrators. ... we all recognize the Catholic sense that tells us that there can be no mixing of the illegitimate new rites with the traditional Catholic rites, a principle so simply elucidated by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 29, 1976:
(Fr. Peter Scott,"Must priests who come to Tradition be re-ordained?" Angelus 2007)
Dominicans of Avrille - “Due to the generalized disorder, both at the liturgical and dogmatic levels, we can have serious reasons to doubt the validity of certain episcopal ordinations.” Questionable Priestly Ordinations in the Conciliar Church
- "Today, we must be precise: “a traditional priest validly ordained”. We know that there is a doubt on the validity of the new rite of priestly ordination (look at the letter of Archbishop Lefebvre on our website - see above 1988 Letter). There is also a doubt about the validity of the ordinations performed by conciliar bishops, even when they use the traditional rite. In his sermon of the consecration of four bishops (June 30, 1988), Archbishop Lefebvre said: “If God calls me, from whom will these seminarians receive the priestly ordination: from conciliar bishops whose sacraments are ALL doubtful?" www.dominicansavrille.us/the-art-of-confessing-part-1-of-3/
Father Chautard - 2018 Catechism of Timely Truths [Translated from the French]
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). [See here]
Fr. Alvaro Calderon " ... the positive and objective defects that this rite [of Episcopal Consecration] suffers, which prevent one from being certain of its validity, it seems to us that - until there is a Roman sentence, for which they would have to change many things - justify and make necessary the conditional reordination of priests consecrated by new bishops and, if necessary, the conditional re-consecration of these bishops. Such uncertainties cannot be suffered at the very root of the sacraments." Fr. Calderón's Study on Novus Ordo Episcopal Consecrations
Fr. Epiney
Bishop Huonder was ordained a priest with the new rite in 1971. In 2007 he was consecrated bishop with the new rite of episcopal ordination. However, Archbishop Lefebvre said: "All the [New Rite] sacraments are doubtful!" Thus, it is no longer clear today in the Ecumenical Council Church if priests are priests, if bishops are bishops It is confusion. We are in full Protestantism. It's almost the same, or even worse! [They are] letting these bishops into the houses of the fraternity, of whom we are not sure of the validity of their priestly and episcopal ordinations, and who have permanent contacts with other bishops who want to take us back to Vatican II ... Because it is the goal, they also say it: it is about helping to integrate. Yes, he is a disciple of Pope Benedict XVI, who attracted some traditional communities that probably remained faithful to the Mass, but no longer fight against the errors of modernism. They shut up! We can not shut up when it comes to the truth! We must respond! We must react because it is about our faith, our salvation, the salvation of our souls. We must wake up! We must not sleep! ( May 26, 2019)
Michael Davies [his books were found on SSPX bookshelves for decades]
- Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II
The Mass and Sacraments Reformed by a Freemason?
It would be impossible to place too much stress upon the fact that Archbishop Bugnini was the moving spirit behind the entire liturgical reform-----a point which, with surprising lack of discretion, L'Osservatore Romano emphasized when it attempted to camouflage the reason for his abrupt dismissal by lavishing praise upon him. Archbishop Bugnini was, the Vatican journal explained, the co-ordinator and animator who had directed the work of the commissions. [L'Osservatore Romano, July 20, 1975.]
It also needs to be stressed that the liturgical reform was not concerned solely with the Mass, but extended to all the Sacraments, not hesitating to interfere in some instances with their very matter and form. The wholesale and drastic nature of this reform constitutes a breach with Tradition unprecedented in the history of the Church-----and the fact that the co-ordinator and animator who directed it was removed from his position because Pope Paul VI believed him to be a Freemason must rightly give every faithful Catholic cause for alarm. This book has been concerned primarily with the Mass, but the changes made in some of the other sacramental rites give equal cause for concern. The modifications made in the Rite of Ordination are, if anything, even more serious than those made in the Mass. [Cf. M. Davies, The Order of Melchisedech (Harrison, NY: Roman Catholic Books, 1993).]
* * *
|
|
ruthy
New Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by ruthy on Jan 26, 2020 3:55:59 GMT
Thank you, for posting quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre, other priests, bishops, on the doubtful sacraments. Fr. Hewko is not saying anything new. It's Fr. Pfeiffer who is preaching something new!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fidelis on Jan 26, 2020 5:51:52 GMT
This is a bad fruit of Moran's influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2020 12:41:32 GMT
The following excerpt is a partial transcript from Fr. Hewko's sermon [Third Sunday after Epiphany - January 26, 2020] where he addresses some of these issues and makes clear, once again, his position:
* * *
Here is the sermon, beginning at approx the 33:25 min mark:
|
|
ruthy
New Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by ruthy on Jan 27, 2020 15:56:20 GMT
"And as Bp. Tissier said in one of his conferences, 'these new rites of ordination and consecration are doubtful.' He says they're not even Catholic and then he goes on to say 'I am not any authority to declare on this, nor are any of us, to declare that they're absolutely invalid or absolutely valid. That's for the Church to decide.'"
BISHOP Tissier even said, he wasn't in a position to declare valid/invalid consecrations.
So, how does Fr. Pfeiffer have the authority to say, the new rite bishops/priests are all valid? Is he in a position to declare that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2020 18:46:37 GMT
"And as Bp. Tissier said in one of his conferences, 'these new rites of ordination and consecration are doubtful.' He says they're not even Catholic and then he goes on to say 'I am not any authority to declare on this, nor are any of us, to declare that they're absolutely invalid or absolutely valid. That's for the Church to decide.'" BISHOP Tissier even said, he wasn't in a position to declare valid/invalid consecrations. So, how does Fr. Pfeiffer have the authority to say, the new rite bishops/priests are all valid? Is he in a position to declare that?
Pope St. Pius X warns against those who with "self assurance ... pose as the rule for all."
> Archbishop Lefebvre did not usurp this authority that belongs to the Church's Magisterium to make such a declaration.
> Father Alvaro Calderón, in his study on Episcopal Consecrations, did not usurp this authority that belongs to the Church's Magisterium to make such a declaration. Rather, he too repeats that this decision is up to the proper authorities [forgive the computer translation from the Spanish]:
> The Angelus in 2003 ran a series of articles on "The Errors of Vatican II" by SiSiNoNo. In the Conclusion, the author did not usurp this authority that belongs to the Church's Magisterium to make such a declaration: |
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Jan 28, 2020 0:37:32 GMT
Is anyone here ever going to post the timestamps for where Fr. Pfeifer has said these things, so we can see the context for these claims that he has changed his teachings?
|
|
anne
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by anne on Jan 28, 2020 8:18:20 GMT
Transcript of parts of Father Pfeiffer’ sermon “The Chair of Peter” January 2020 15:24 “Now we bring this up because of a specific problem that has come up recently. That is the teaching which is a new version of sedevacantism. Now we call it a new brand of sedevacantism version 4718. So there are many varieties of sedevacantism which are essentially the same teaching and that is: “The pope is not the pope.” So that Francis is not the pope. Now there is a new variety that has come up which is the variety that says that Francis and Benedict who are both consecrated bishops in the new rite, since they were consecrated bishops in the new rite, they may not be bishops. Best you can say is they might be doubtful bishops and since they are doubtful bishops, a doubtful bishop is to be considered not a bishop, therefore they are not to be recognized as bishops. And if they are doubtful bishops they may not be bishops. And if they are not bishops they are not successors of St. Peter.” 18:52 “The problem you have if you say that all the Novus Ordo ordinations are doubtful and they are not real and that all the episcopacy of Pope Francis is not real and episcopacy of Pope Benedict is not real. That means we have to say they are doubtful popes. And papa dubia, papa nulla. A doubtful pope who is truly doubtful he cannot be pope. So if he is truly, objectively doubtful. In this case he would be truly, objectively doubtful because his very ordination is doubtful. You have to be baptized and you have to be ordained bishop in order to become a pope.” 22:11 “The problem we have is, it’s like Pinocchio. Pinocchio was going to tell a lie. He only told one lie. But then what happened. He had to back it up. So his nose grew a little bit more. Then he had to back it up a little bit more and his nose kept growing. He only wanted to tell one lie. But what happened is his nose kept growing and growing and growing because he had to back it up and back it up and back it up. So like here, whenever we go against Holy Mother Church and her teaching, we cannot just have one error, it is going to compound into another. So when we look at the new ordination rite, the Holy Ghost will not allow that there will be 100000 priests and 7000 bishops who are NOT representatives of God. These bishops have valid ordinations to perpetuate with certainty Holy Mother the Church. And if we say these bishops are not bishops and these priests are not priests we get into an impossible situation. An insoluble situation. 31:22 “This new teaching that the ordination rites are all invalid is not correct. Archbishop Lefebvre taught in the Open Letter to confused Catholics that the matter and form of the sacrament of priesthood in the new rite is correct. The concern he had was with regard to the intention but the matter and form is correct. And that we accept as the priest in general as valid priests, we accept the bishops as valid bishops and when they come to us we do an inquisition to see whether or not the proper form was followed, they did the ceremony they were supposed to.” Father Pfeiffer says: • Doubtful means → invalid (!), if one holds this, one is a sedevacantist (unintentional at best) • Invalid means no bishop, priest—> cannot be the case, as the Holy Ghost would not allow it to have invalid bishops, priests, sitting on their chairs, having their offices. • Question: If there is no doubt, why reordain? However, Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Hewko ( and numerous others as quoted above in this thread) say: • Doubtful means unsure, we suspend our judgment, can be either or, better take the safer path, let the church decide later on
Admin Note: Link to above transcript here. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2020 13:09:55 GMT
Transcript of parts of Father Pfeiffer’ sermon “The Chair of Peter” January 2020 15:24 “Now we bring this up because of a specific problem that has come up recently. That is the teaching which is a new version of sedevacantism. Now we call it a new brand of sedevacantism version 4718. So there are many varieties of sedevacantism which are essentially the same teaching and that is: “The pope is not the pope.” So that Francis is not the pope. Now there is a new variety that has come up which is the variety that says that Francis and Benedict who are both consecrated bishops in the new rite, since they were consecrated bishops in the new rite, they may not be bishops. Best you can say is they might be doubtful bishops and since they are doubtful bishops, a doubtful bishop is to be considered not a bishop, therefore they are not to be recognized as bishops. And if they are doubtful bishops they may not be bishops. And if they are not bishops they are not successors of St. Peter.” 18:52 “The problem you have if you say that all the Novus Ordo ordinations are doubtful and they are not real and that all the episcopacy of Pope Francis is not real and episcopacy of Pope Benedict is not real. That means we have to say they are doubtful popes. And papa dubia, papa nulla. A doubtful pope who is truly doubtful he cannot be pope. So if he is truly, objectively doubtful. In this case he would be truly, objectively doubtful because his very ordination is doubtful. You have to be baptized and you have to be ordained bishop in order to become a pope.” 22:11 “The problem we have is, it’s like Pinocchio. Pinocchio was going to tell a lie. He only told one lie. But then what happened. He had to back it up. So his nose grew a little bit more. Then he had to back it up a little bit more and his nose kept growing. He only wanted to tell one lie. But what happened is his nose kept growing and growing and growing because he had to back it up and back it up and back it up. So like here, whenever we go against Holy Mother Church and her teaching, we cannot just have one error, it is going to compound into another. So when we look at the new ordination rite, the Holy Ghost will not allow that there will be 100000 priests and 7000 bishops who are NOT representatives of God. These bishops have valid ordinations to perpetuate with certainty Holy Mother the Church. And if we say these bishops are not bishops and these priests are not priests we get into an impossible situation. An insoluble situation. 31:22 “This new teaching that the ordination rites are all invalid is not correct. Archbishop Lefebvre taught in the Open Letter to confused Catholics that the matter and form of the sacrament of priesthood in the new rite is correct. The concern he had was with regard to the intention but the matter and form is correct. And that we accept as the priest in general as valid priests, we accept the bishops as valid bishops and when they come to us we do an inquisition to see whether or not the proper form was followed, they did the ceremony they were supposed to.” Father Pfeiffer says: • Doubtful means → invalid (!), if one holds this, one is a sedevacantist (unintentional at best) • Invalid means no bishop, priest—> cannot be the case, as the Holy Ghost would not allow it to have invalid bishops, priests, sitting on their chairs, having their offices. • Question: If there is no doubt, why reordain? However, Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Hewko ( and numerous others as quoted above in this thread) say: • Doubtful means unsure, we suspend our judgment, can be either or, better take the safer path, let the church decide later on
Thank you, Anne, for your hard work in making this available for others! No small sacrifice, I'm sure.
We see in these quotes very clearly the twisting of words. A new meaning is assigned to the term doubtful. Fr. Pfeiffer clearly turns it into a word that means invalid, as Anne has pointed out. But that is NOT what doubtful means. It is a term found in many manuals of moral theology and as such, has a particular definition. According to Prummer's Manuale Theologiae Moralis, a "doubt" is a suspension of judgement. A suspension of judgement is not a declaration. But we see that Fr. Pfeiffer is preaching as if doubt = invalid. It is not a declaration of invalidity.
Doubtful Orders is not a new subject in the Church.
Pope Innocent XI condemned the use of doubtful/probable, Sacraments, particularly in Baptism and Holy Orders in 1679, as noted in Denzinger #1151:
- Even before Pope Leo XIII's bull Apostolicae Curae, Fr. Michael Clifton (Angelus, June 1979) noted that Pope Paul IV in 1555 condemned the Anglican Orders and required reordinations:
As an aside, or rather as a reminder, when examining the bull by Pope Leo XIII, Fr. Clifton includes these passages from Apostolicae Curae:
Fr. Clifton then turns his attention to the New Rite of Ordination under Pope Paul VI:
Dear friends, we have a right to doubt these new Novus Ordo [New Order] Ordinations and Consecrations. Those much better than us laity have expressed doubt. Archbishop Lefebvre expressed doubt. He expressed this doubt not only theoretically, but in a practical way as well, by conditionally reordaining many priests, much to the irritation of the Conciliar Church. Some of the best theologians of the SSPX have clearly and plainly said one cannot say there is no doubt in these new Rites of Ordination and Consecration.
Let us continue to pray for Fr. Pfeiffer and all of OLMC. This new path that they are on may well prove to be disastrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by S.A.G. on Jan 28, 2020 14:44:40 GMT
St. Paul warns if anyone teaches something different from what you have already been taught let him be anathema! We well know what Archbishop Lefebvre taught and what he meant. It's a huge sign of warning to stay away from anyone who tries to manipulate the Archbishop's words.
These are the words of Abp. Lefebvre from the Open Letter:
|
|
|
|
Post by Fidelis on Jan 29, 2020 12:32:16 GMT
What a relief that we dont have to rely on 'arm chair' theologians as the Church Magisterium. Let us continue to offer our prayers for the conversion of Pope Francis. St Francis De Sales, Pray for us!
|
|
|
|
Post by hermenegild on Jan 31, 2020 1:10:43 GMT
Well done, anne. A lot became obvious in those quotes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 31, 2020 13:49:47 GMT
Taken from Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume 3, Chapter LIII - Persevering in Tradition: Communiqué Published by Archbishop Lefebvre and Several Other Priests Active in the "Holy Resistance"1
28 May 1981
Archbishop Lefebvre, Msgr. Ducaud-Bourget, Rev. Dom Gerard, OSB, Rev. Father Eugene, OFM Cap. Father André, Father Aulagnier (District Superior of the Society of St. Pius X for France), were invited to the Maison Lacordaire, Flavigny, to meet their host, Father Coache. They understand and share the distress of many of the faithful at the "self-destruction" of the Church, which is proceeding ever more rapidly and deeply, and the concern of many traditionalists over the entrenched ambiguity of Rome. They decided to give some encouragement to these troubled souls, to help them remain steadfast in the Faith, to persevere in Tradition without wavering. For this purpose they make the following declaration: 1. They remain attached heart and soul to the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman church, to all she has taught and defined as part of Revelation, and to everything which, though not yet defined, has been consistently taught by the Magisterium, especially regarding the Liturgy of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This is all the more necessary as they observe that the so-called progressives, embracing novelties and ecumenical reforms, are already for the most part hardly any different from Protestants and are thus no longer Catholic.2. They remain attached to the See of Peter and to the Successor of Peter, in spite of the serious criticisms which can be justly made concerning him, especially for his decision to further the work of the Council, which is purely and simply the "self-destruction" of the Church. We must pray that he may be enlightened by the Holy Ghost and return to Tradition, which is eternal, and that in all areas. 3. They make the firm resolution to maintain Tradition at all costs, especially in the Liturgy of the Mass and the Sacraments, sources of supernatural grace and pledges of their salvation. They thus support all institutions and seminaries designed to train true priests to offer the true Sacrifice. 4. They encourage and support all traditional forms of religious life, orders and contemplative congregations, semi-contemplative, and active congregations of fraternities which make the Holy Sacrifice of the immemorial Mass the source of their supernatural life. 5. They hope to see multiplied and developed teaching orders, to give solidly Catholic training to young people, based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the catechisms which derive from it. Modem catechisms twist the sense of the Faith and lay the foundation for generations of Modernists and atheists. It is better for parents to teach their children themselves than to hand them over to intellectual, spiritual and moral perversion. In short, the faithful must be aware that we are living in more subtle and dangerous times of persecution against Our Lord Jesus Christ than ever, because, as in the time of Modernism, this persecution takes on misleading appearances and even uses the same Gospel (as for the theology of liberation), invoking the "rights of Man" and "human dignity" and such phrases well known among progressivists, socialists and even Marxists (cf. Pius X's Letter on the Sillon, 1910). Everything is geared to the total destruction of Christian institutions and of the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, especially His social reign, i.e., His laws and the Ten Commandments. Only by relying on the eternal tradition of the Faith, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, on the Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, on the Rosary and the Spiritual Exercises, can we hold out against the plague of destruction which is coming over us.
6. They ask the faithful to gather around priests faithful to Rome and to the Successor of Peter. These bulwarks of resistance, by their prayers and spirit of penance, will finally succeed in touching the Hearts of Jesus and Mary and bring about the end of this dreadful and destructive time of trial to souls.
They should guard against being led astray by false messages from heaven, false devotions such as pentecostalism, which is a work of the devil. Our Lord Himself warns us against these seductive movements. They should commit themselves to Mary, Joseph, the archangels, and angels and to all the elect of heaven. They should invoke their guardian angels. They should unite themselves to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, make frequent acts of adoration, carry out the duties of their state in life, observe the Ten Commandments and practise charity on an individual and social level. In this way they will receive the graces necessary to get them through this wicked world and into heaven. 7. They are in favor of the development of a great Rosary Crusade to storm heaven through the Heart of Our Lady, Mother of the Church, Help of Christians and consolation of the Afflicted; they invite priests and faithful, with this goal in view, to take whatever initiatives their zeal and charity will suggest. * * * *
The aforesaid declaration was released to the press on May 28, 1981. It was signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and the above-named priests and sums up the fundamental traditionalist position.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
