The Parishioner
I am one of the millions of pewsitters throughout the world. We all believe the same thing. We believe what we have been taught by the Church about the unchanging God > unchanging truths of our faith. We are not: theologians, doctors of philosophy; Church Fathers or saints. We have simply practised the faith in obedience to the Church's teachings since the time of Christ. Receiving the Sacraments throughout our lives, saying the Rosary, having countless devotional practices and endeavouring to keep her laws to the best of our ability - the faith has been absorbed into our very essence. This is not an individual thing, it is universal - meaning that, not only do we personally and individually become Catholic to the core, the whole body of us are united in that very same faith. We all know each other in that dimension.... it is a universal language needing no searching for words to communicate with one another. I find this a profound revelation. to do it for the love of God specifically thus growing in the faith. That is a broad description of the Pewsitter.
The 'Faith' is the body of teaching itself. It is simple, coherent, seamless with no contradictions. A Pewsitter knows when something is said by anybody which is in line with the Faith. He also knows when it is not in line with the Faith. Being his sole guiding star his faith has become instinctive. It is this tool I am using to express my opinion on what is happening in the Church today as one of the laity. Every Catholic, from the simple parishioner to the Pope inclusively, is bound to believe the defined truths such as are contained in the Credo. A person may be baptised removing the indelible stain of the original sin inherited. Learning the faith as he grows the Catholic reaches the stage where he gives his own personal consent, his fiat, to all he believes - or he refuses to do so. The former becomes one of the Persitters with the teachings of Christ written in his heart....for it cannot be written without his consent. Up till the time of decision he has the gratuitous unearned protection of the Church then either embraces the faith with full consent or disclaims it and leaves her sanctuary.
When a leader in the Church...say a priest, religious nun/brother, bishop, archbishop or pope says, practices or teaches anything, no matter how small, that puts a tear or mark on the seamless garment of faith the pewsitter knows it immediately....
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd whoknow me. And the hireling flieth, because he is a
hireling.....and he hath no care for the sheep.
The Pewsitter hears that voice clearly in his heart. He will not follow the shepherd/hireling that fled abandoning the sheep to the wolves. So where does he turn? The rock-like faith in his heart steadies him to continue listening. I will not leave thee, neither will I forsake thee. It is enough. He doesn't have to know anymore because if God is with him he knows he is safe whatever happens or wherever he goes. He knows this voice is true because it is what the Church has taught down through the ages..it is written there - so that if the shepherd has abandoned him - he knows the shepherd has not the faith. That, too, is enough. He does not have to know the whys and wherefores..he simply expresses his responding prayer thus: I know it is Christ in my heart because it is in believing Him in his church and receiving him in the Sacraments that my heart speaks thus. It can be no other voice. It leaves me in peace when all around me is falling apart....and my faith shines all the brighter in confirmation of his promise never to leave me.
THE PEWSITTER (PS)
I speak solely from the perspective of the Pewsitter (Ps) making observations along the way regarding the different language spoken to us since Vatican II...a language that annihilates everything the Church has ever taught and practised and I will start here.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN PAUL II
(I will make them in my own image)
Pope John Paul II teachings:
All the following statements are his personal opinions. He is speaking outside his Office as Pope. Therefore they count as nothing to the Pewsitter.
"A definition of 'Marian titles' of 'Advocate,' 'Co-redemptrix,' 'Mediatrix ' is not in line wth the guidance of the great Marian texts of Vatican II" (See "Osservatore Romano" 05/04/1997)
Ps: Placing these Marian titles in doubt are the perennial teachings of the Church. Note that Vat.II becomes the new source of this non-Catholic disbelief.
"Jesus on the cross, has not formally proclaimed the Universal Motherhood of Mary, but established a maternal relationship, anointed between Her and the favourite disciple" (See "Osservatore Romano"04/04/1997)
Ps: This is his own version since it contradicts the teachings of the Church up to Vatican II.
Reaffirming the doctrine that Jesus is the Son, consubstantial with the Father he states :
"One can accept it (as definitive)...or reject all this, and write in capital letters "God does not have a Son"; "Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, but only one of the prophets" (P.9 "Crossing the Threshold of Hope") In this sentence the Pope makes allowance for those who reject the truth.
He leaves open the possibility that it does not matter if one rejects it....he understands man's inability to believe this.... he does nothing to correct it, nay, condemn it which is his sole reason for being Pope. He consoles man at the expense of Christ's integrity.
In the same book -what does he mean by:
"Is it any wonder that even those who believe in one God...find it difficult to accept the faith in a Crucified God?...So therefore at the heart of this great monotheistic tradition, this deep laceration has been opened."
Ps: Elsewhere he equates the Muslims/Jews/Catholics as accepting One God (monotheistic).
Linking the three opposing religions under the name 'monotheistic' and 'tradition' he implicitly denies Christ as the Redeemer giving his life to save each member of those religions. The Muslims take 'Allah' as their monotheistic god; the Jewish faith denies the divinity of Christ; the Catholic Church proclaims Our Lord Jesus Christ as the only God without whom nobody can be saved. Also it is the only religion that proclaims its reason for being is to save souls.
"Christ died for all men and therefore every man is saved "whether he knows it or not, whether he accepts it or not by means of faith" (See Karol Wojtyla, "Sign of Contradiction," Milan 1977c.11)
Every Pewsitter recognises this crucial mistake when Vatican II changed this central part of the Mass. The New Order of the Mass has changed the words from ...which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins..... to .....will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.....
The heart and soul of the Church's teaching is that "There is no salvation outside the (Catholic) Church". This requires faith that Christ died for our sins. Christ offers salvation only to those who believe that He alone died for their sins - if not, their sins remain. The Pewsitter knows that man can commit the unforgivable sin which is a sin against the Spirit of Truth (Holy Ghost). Our Lord has said that this sin will be forgiven neither on earth nore in heaven. The Chair of Peter (Papacy) which is given the power to 'bind and loose' does not have the power to forgive this sin...so Our Lord did not die for all. Should the Church decide to correct this wording it still shows what John Paul II taught and which came into universal practice. And pewsitters who refused to follow this, seeking out the diminishing number of priests praying only the traditional Mass, were treated as excommunicated.
These few statements, above, by themselves are enough to tell the Pewsitter that Pope John Paul had either ceased to believe what is binding on all Catholics from top to bottom - or that he changed Christ's own words. Catholics trustingly obey their Pope...like children to a father. It is very difficult for me to follow through the line of thought that: if the Pope had not lost the faith then what he was saying projects the Church's consistent teaching as a lie - with himself as the sole authority on earth, even exceeding the authority of the Apostles, Evangelists, Church Fathers, Councils, previous popes and the saints. If what he says is true then not only all those that went before him had lied or were mistaken - but that Christ too had lied or been mistaken. It seems to me, the pewsitter, that if I try to be charitable and say, 'he could not have lost the faith surely' then what I conclude is far, far worse....that he has been deceived to the point of believing everything he has said and deceiving everyone he has said it to - the whole world, all other false religions and cults that he visited and told them they had all been saved regardless of whether they believed or not.
Then there is the example. John Paul II travelled all over the world publicly demonstrating what he believed and taught - equating all faiths and cults with Catholicism under the umbrella of monotheism. He not only wrote and spoke his ideas - he put them into practice. If he saw himself as being charitable spreading Christ's love to all mankind - albeit mistakenly - then he abandoned his own children in the process. Preaching error outside he destroyed truth inside. He failed to address the scandals, corruption and chaos that ran rampant in the family home.
The greatest tragedy is that the whole world has been deprived of knowing the truth about Christ so how can anyone be saved?...............................
My Own Declaration.
...............................
The Credo in the side-columns of these pages is a summary of the faith that has been handed down to us from the time of Christ. It is the faith I stand by and am prepared to die defending. If anyone calls into question these truths the Church's perennial teachings tell us.....let him be anathema.Pope Paul VI who preceded John Paul II gave as his definition of Christ that the peak to which man can aspire is on earth. Christ was perfect man full stop. The perennial teachings of the Church were omitted from the Pope's language so that a whole generation has grown up ignorant of them and thus incapable of passing them on. This is the gospel according to Paul VI and realised through the instrumentality of the second Vatican Council. Forget everything that went before....this is the product of Christ's sacrifice! Our own glorification! The new heaven and the new earth where man is exalted and worshipped for himself alone. He is not judgeable because absolutely perfect since Christ bore our sins. And nobody from henceforth is excluded. This is the new version of ...there will be neither jew nor gentile, male nor female (homosexuality and/or sexual suppression?) . No need to worship anybody in fact - we have all been freed from offering rites and sacrifice on altars wherever they may be or by whomever they may be offered. We are free NOW because of Christ! He has just faded away into the distant sky having completed his task for 'it is done..' What matchless humility!
..............................
Foul is fairFair is foulRighteousness is but a fetter on man.Remove it and you have the Superman.
(Quote taken from the Satanic Bible)
And what charity has Vat.II shown so that simple folk (like me), who could never understand the changes, (not being scholars and theologians like them) will just have the Sacraments gradually replaced with beautiful words that have no liturgical value....that way the transition will be painless. Liturgy was very important up till Vat.II because it told us of Christ which we had to know up till then....but now it's not necessary. A new springtime has come...rejoice!
Good and evil are gone..banished from the earth to pester man no more. This is the interpretation of Christianity propounded since Vatican II Council. To misrepresent Christ's salvation of mankind as such is a monstrous distortion of the truth....of Truth Itself. Man in the person of the Gospel of Pope Paul VI has elevated himself to glory Didn't Christ show us the way? sacrificing his life to reveal to man that he is now perfect without sin because Christ has actually destroyed sin when he paid the price personally. Man is now free and is not accepting Christ's sacrifice if he still thinks he is a sinner. If Christ has paid the price for our sins then of course...they are no more.
Contrast that to the witness of Christ himself who never ceased praying to his Father in heaven...the Father is greater than I.....the day will come when all men will know how much I love the Father. Never losing his equality with the God the Father, he divested himself of it for a time so as to become weak as we are weak. He temporarily laid aside the garment of royalty knowing that when he returned many would follow him and share in his kingdom....knowing that man would reject, humiliate and crucify him.
Now, his trusted representatives have given us a picture of Christ as sacrificing himself to such an extent that he hasn't sought our homage or even thanks to his Father....that we are now free and do not need him any more. It is a distortion using the framework of the Church's teachings to give a totally inverse interpretation.
............................
Furthermore:
Having read Luigi Villa’s books on the conciliar popes and checked for myself many of his documented references I have gained a distinct impression regarding JPII and his propagation of ecumenism.
It seems to me that he has carried through the thinking he had when he was a priest.
He had many debates questioning the dogmas of the Catholic Church taking into account the thinking of people who would oppose them or not understand them. That seemed to me well and good until I tried to understand his thinking regarding his total abandonment to all other religions and cults evidenced in his very public praying with them (see following).
I would not have challenged the debating in itself but when a friend stated that Thomas Aquinas had done the same thing it got me thinking because I knew there was a difference. And of course there is a difference.
When Thomas Aquinas debated he knew the truth resided in the Church’s dogmas. He debated with a view to correcting the error(s) expounded in the opposing side. He could unravel an opposing argument and see where and how a misstep had been taken leading to the final error(s). There was never in St. Thomas’s mind the idea that he could or would make allowances for others to not understand to the extent that the faith of the Catholic Church could or would accommodate them. The Catholic Church never excuses disbelief. She makes allowances for people, who in genuine ignorance have grown up without knowledge of the faith, but She never condones it or accommodates it as part of her teaching. Unlike John Paul II who virtually carried the message to other religions, cults and denominations that if they couldn’t understand the teachings then that was all right; that the Church understood, and that the knowledge of Christ and his teachings was not necessary for salvation. Somehow they could be anonymous believers and Christ would not mind. I heard the word 'anonymous' used quite a lot during the reign of Pope John Paul II.
This Pope did not state emphatically (omitted to state) that if a person could not believe the Church’s teachings that he/she should persevere until they did. That with an open mind and a good teacher God would never withhold his grace from someone who was trying. The Church has always taught that nobody is excluded from becoming a Catholic and that all men are capable of knowing the truth. Of course there are extreme cases but, again, the Church never gave the okay to their separated condition.
Observing these differences in the theology of these PJPII and Thomas Aquinas puts into perspective the downplaying of St. Thomas Aquinas post Vatican II to the point that his influence is barely discernible these past 40 years.
What confuses ordinary Catholics is that there are so many scholars around propounding their own understanding of the Catholic faith. We often see the word ‘heresy’ bandied about. Actions and duplicitous wording cannot be claimed as heresy even though they are heretical because they do not meet the legal definition of the word so they are never condemned...or should I say, not condemned officially by the Church. Prior to Vatican II no Catholic was every in doubt when the Church outspokenly condemned error. We cannot speak for ourselves because we have no ‘lay’ leader as such with the authority to do so, nor can anybody for that matter....only a future Pope. We remain at the mercy of the confused babel of voices around us.
BUT the fact is that we KNOW there has been a complete rupture in the teachings before Vatican II and the mix of words that Council bequeathed to us. Nobody committed material(?) heresy we are told neither has anybody told us outright why it does not matter today whether you believe in Christ or not, he loves us all so much that it is no longer necessary to believe all the things we believed before. Whatever was said to the outside world was applicable to Catholics inside the Church but with no explanation to the latter. The Mass has completely changed. The priest can concelebrate with non-Catholics. A pagan symbol can be placed on a tabernacle where the Pope prayed with different cults. No matter that the tabernacle was empty...the example was horrifying. We felt that our faith was being thrown back in our faces and nobody would bother telling us why everything is different, nay. why everything was opposite to what we believed.
Relief came to this writer when by the grace of God I stumbled upon a Catholic Church where I could see our beautiful Mass being offered. I could not stop the choking tears that erupted from the depth of my heart. There I also found in plain language an outline in simple words a summary of the state of the Church and why this particular one was still celebrating the Catholic Mass and hearing Confessions by ordained priests'
Having just arrived I was informed that I was excommunicated if I went there.
The humility of past ages has long gone. The writings of deceased Catholics were released after they died if and when they were found to be worthy. Nowadays it is a favourite pasttime of living popes in particular to splash their own ideas on to an unsuspecting public never explaining that these are personal opinions/interpretations having no more authority than any layman or woman.
.......................................................
A Book was recently released wherein letters were exchanged between Father Aiden and Moyra Doorly. I will provide the title and more details of these authors in a day or two. Below are comments I have made which in themselves are sufficient to give some idea of the chaos that exists now in the Church.
• I would have liked to comment on what Fr. Adrian has said but there is little you can really grab hold of. Moyra Doorly had a uniform pattern set out, stuck to it, and quoted from the SSPX’s actual words and the reasoning they conveyed.
• Fr. Adrian, in my opinion, would have clarified his position better had he challenged the actual quotes and the reasoning that issued therefrom since he seemed to be the one correcting the ideas of the Confused Catholic.
• On Pages 3-4 Father Adrian writes, ‘In the upshot, however, the Second Vatican Council left little unchanged in Catholic life and thought’ If that is so, why, following Vatican II have so many people left? Why are so many Catholics today practising contraception? Why did the general rite of reconciliation substantially replace the individual Sacrament of Confession? Why was the paedophilea scandal covered up? Why did Pope John Paul II leave the flock unprotected while he embraced the world stage spreading his version of ecumenism? Is it unchanged in the life of the Church that a post-Vat II layman offered Holy Communion to an unshriven person that had not practised the faith for many years.
• Would the innocent young man be horrified to learn that pre-Vatican II only the consecrated hands of a priest could distribute Holy Communion? And that if such a priest was aware that the soul was in a state of mortal sin he was bound to refuse administering it because he would be violating the Body and Blood of Christ? In the case quoted, the subject told the young man she had not been to Confession after which he replied it does not matter, “God loves everyone.”
• Should the young man mentioned above look at these words would he logically conclude that we belong to different faiths?
• And are present-day Protestant denominations and various pagan cults who pray to the one monotheistic God, whether it be Krishna, Allah, Mohommad or Christ aware that without the Blessed Virgin Mary no graces whatsoever are given to anybody anywhere? In short that without the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of all graces, no soul can be saved? Why was it a mortal sin for me to go to a non-Catholic service pre-Vat.II and not for the Pope? Hasn’t that changed? That there is one rule for the Pope and another rule for the flock? If so when did the Church tell us plainly that it was now OK to worship other Gods? That the Church has been mistaken and that we can all do what we like and go where we want; worship how we feel best.
• The matters raised here are merely the tip of the iceberg. But just as a final observation. When there was one Mass universally practised and described as ‘the most beautiful thing this side of heaven’....when we had what was perfect why are we fighting to preserve something that is less perfect endeavouring to reform it taking the original Mass as the objective when that Mass still exists?
......................................
18th July, 2013
It is some time since I have updated this website due partly to family situations, but mostly to
the rapidly deteriorating circumstances occurring in Mother Church. The poison emanating from VatII council has all but destroyed the traditional Catholic Faith. The same poison has spread out seeping into Catholic institutions established to counter the heresies emanating from Rome. One after the other they have been swallowed up by believing the promises made to them by the hierarchy. The only one left was the Society of St. Pius X but now, sadly, it is falling under the same spell as its traditional neighbours.
:
I will post here, on the Pewsitter Page what is happening to us by a series of letters I and others have written here and there. They will speak for themselves. It is hard to know where to begin but let's see how things go..
I will start with the following summation written by a traditional Catholic. There is no need to mention names, as the sources are readily available. This is an overview of Rome's antics:
Pope: Condom Use Can be Justified in Some Cases
November 20, 2010
Church should not pursue conversion of Jews, pope says
Mar. 10, 2011
Pope underlines his top public priority: religious freedom
January 10, 2011
Pope Benedict Announces Interreligious Summit at Assisi
2011
Pope Benedict to Appear in Paraliturgical Event With Lutheran Bishopess
Sep. 17, 2011
Pope Benedict praises Martin Luther
Sep 23, 2011
Paul VI to be beatified
2013
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict called on Tuesday for a "world political authority" to manage the global economy and for more government regulation of national economies
Tue Jul 7, 2009
Vatican calls for global authority on economy
Document also calls for "Central World Bank"
Mon Oct 24, 2011
Nativity donkeys and cattle are a myth, says Pope
7:32PM GMT 20 Nov 2012
The inauguration of the new King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue (KAICIID), promoted by the Holy See, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Austria, will take place on 26 November
11/21/2012
Pope Benedict XVI Beatifies Pope John Paul II
May 01, 2011
*********************************
Compare the above with what is written below. You will see the gradual displacement of Archbishop LeFebvre's founding principles under the present Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay. (Emphasis is my own).
TWO CONFLICTING MINDSETS (click title)
(you will need to scroll down
a bit):
"I have written before about the mindset of the Saintly Archbishop Lefebvre, providing quotes from him to show what his positions on various topics were. Accordistas believe that Bishop Fellay primarily shares the mindset of the Archbishop. The purpose of this article is to prove them wrong in their assumption.
I will compare some quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre to some quotes from Bishop Fellay regarding various topics and will let you all judge for yourselves just how much (or how little) Bishop Fellay’s mindset reflects that of the Archbishop’s.
Judaism
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet and has great respect for Mary, and this certainly places Islam nearer to our religion than say, for instance, Judaism, which is far more distant from us. Islam was born in the 7th century and it has benefited to some degree from the Christian teachings of those days.
Judaism, on the other hand, is the heir to the system, which crucified our
Lord. And the members of this religion, who have not converted to Christ, are
those who are radically opposed to our Lord Jesus Christ. For them, there is no
question whatever of recognizing our Lord. They are in opposition to the very
foundation and existence of the Catholic faith on this subject. However, we
cannot both be right. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Lord and
Savior or He is not. This is one case where there cannot be the slightest
compromise without destroying the very foundation of Catholic faith.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, interview, 1978) “. . . .most recently, the Pope has been into the synagogue of the Jews in
Bishop Fellay:
“Anti-semitism has no place in our ranks.” (Bishop Fellay, in response to Bishop Williamson’s denial of the “holocaust”, 2009)
“The Jews are our elder brothers.” (Bishop Fellay, comment in “The Angelus”, 2009)
Do we see the difference here? Only one of the two sets of quotes above is in line with Church teaching, and it’s the quotes from the Archbishop. As
“The synagogues of the Jews are the homes of idolatry and devils, even though they have no images in them [Sermon I:3; based on Jer. vii:11]. They are worse even than heathen circuses [Sermon I:3] The very idea of going from a church to a synagogue is blasphemous [Sermon II:3]; and to attend the Jewish Passover is to insult Christ. To be with the Jews on the very day they murdered Jesus is to ensure that on the Day of Judgment He will say ‘ Depart from Me: for you have had intercourse with my murderers’. – St. John Chrysostom, Eight Homilies Against the Jews
Vatican II
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
“We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of
Bishop Fellay:
“[Thanks to the doctrinal discussions with Rome] we see that many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council” … and that: “The Pope says that the Council must be put within the great Tradition of the Church… These are statements we agree with, totally, absolutely.” (Bishop Fellay, CNS interview, May, 2012)
“The entire Tradition of the Catholic faith must be the criterion and the guide for understanding the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which in turn illuminates – i.e. deepens and further makes explicit– some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church, implicitly present in her midst or not yet conceptually formulated.” (Bishop Fellay, 2012 Doctrinal Preamble)
Bishop Fellay has also said that he accepts “95%” of Vatican II. The Archbishop never made any such statement. So they differ in position here as well.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Vatican II Popes and Hierarchy
“We must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels, any Catholic revival.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography” by Bishop Tissier, pp. 602-603)
“
“The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome are being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even in His Mystical Body here below… This is what has brought down upon our hearts persecution by the
Bishop Fellay:
“We have great expectations for the traditional apostolate, just as some important personages in
”Despite the doctrinal differences that were still evident on the occasion of
the theological talks held between 2009 and 2011, the Society of Saint Pius X
does not forget that the Holy Father had the courage to recall the fact that
the Traditional Mass had never been abrogated, and to do away with the
canonical sanctions that had been imposed on its bishops following their
consecration in 1988. It is not unaware of the opposition that these
decisions have stirred up, obliging the pope to justify himself to the bishops
of the whole world. The Society expresses its gratitude to him for the
strength and the constancy that he has shown toward it in such difficult
circumstances, and assures him of its prayers for the time that he wishes to
devote from now on to recollection.” (Bishop Fellay, Press Release from
Menzingen following the resignation of Benedict XVI, February 2013) Again, Bishop Fellay doesn’t share the Archbishop’s position. The Archbishop did not hesitate to criticize the Vatican II hierarchy, whereas Bishop Fellay does not hesitate to praise them.
Negotiations with Modernist Rome
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“What could be clearer? We must [according to
“If one day they shall excommunicate us because we remain faithful to these thesis, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated by Freemasonry.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon given in 1978)
“On the other hand, we have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society.Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus, with the pantheon of the religions of Assisi; our own excommunication by a decree of Your Eminence or of another Roman Congregation would only be the irrefutable proof of this.We ask for nothing better than to be declared out of communion with this adulterous spirit which has been blowing in the Church for the last 25 years; we ask for nothing better than to be declared outside of this impious communion of the ungodly.We believe in the One God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and we will always remain faithful to His unique Spouse, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988)
“We would have to re-enter this
“Eminence, even if you give us everything–a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries–we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.” (Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, 1987)
[So much for the theory of Fr Thiemann that the only reason Archbishop Lefebvre didn't sign was because they wouldn't give him a bishop. -Sean Johnson]
“And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor’s field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church’s defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. “After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says” —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Address to his priests, Econe, 1990)
Bishop Fellay:
“Reading your letter one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church with its seat in
“…if you compare five years ago, it is enormous progress … I find them [conciliar bishops seeking tradition] a little bit everywhere. … it’s coming, little by little but it’s coming … this influence of the tradition is gaining … When you look at the situation in the Church, it is still winter. But we start to see the little signs that indicate that spring is coming.” (Bishop Fellay, Toronto Conference, December 28th, 2012)
“Unfortunately, in the current context of the Society, the new declaration will not be accepted. [...] I am committed to this perspective [practical agreement without doctrinal agreement] despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications. [...] May Your Holiness deign to believe my filial devotion and my dearest wish to serve the Church.” (Bishop Fellay, letter to Benedict XVI, 2012)
The set of quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre are entirely different from those of Bishop Fellay. The last quote from Bishop Fellay is especially interesting. He attempted to tell us that it was
It is clear from comparing the quotes that Bishop Fellay does not hold the same mindset that Archbishop Lefebvre did, and thus, he has abandoned the principles of the Society’s founder.
God Bless."
.......................................................
Here is a video that will help close the gaps:
And another:
Here is a video that will help close the gaps:
Excerpt from another Sermon by Fr. Girouard:
[..]And so with the greatest charity, sometimes is, with
a lot of patience and goodness in our hearts, is to tell somebody that he or
she is not doing the right thing. To tell the truth, not to act as if it was
normal, not to act as if what that person does is acceptable. It is like with a
kid, with a child, if you never reprove a child, he will never be able to
improve. And it's the same thing with our neighbor; sometimes a little talk,
you have to be careful about the circumstances, but it may happen one time that
this is the right moment for me to talk. And to pray for these people always,
obviously.
And unfortunately, with the Second
Vatican Council this has changed. They have been giving a false love, an
appearance of love to their brethren, by trying to accept them as they are.
That is not true love. That is to mislead them, and they will be responsible.
They will be accountable for them at the last Judgment. They will be, they will
have to answer: “Why have you stopped preaching the truth? Why have you stopped
to reprove the evil doers?” (The role of the Church is to do both. To preach
the light and to fight the darkness).
We have an example of that, in the
new ritual of the Conciliar
Church Conciliar Church New Church
Moreover, many times also we have to
fear that the New
Church Winnipeg
Now the big problem with this,
because now it is clear that this is what he believes, which is a heresy, so
this man is probably a heretic, is that when he performs an ordination, from
time to time he does; in the last 10 years, I don't know, maybe 5 ordinations
or something. I am not sure if he was asked to consecrate another Bishop, it is
possible, he is an Archbishop, but I would have to verify. In any case, whether
he consecrated other Bishops or whether he ordained priests, there is a serious
and positive doubt about the validity of these consecrations and these
ordinations. Because if himself does not believe that by the priesthood, by his
ordination, he has received the sacerdotal character; if he does not believe
that he received the power to forgive sin; if he does not believe that he
received the power to consecrate the body and the blood of our Lord; if he does
not believe that he has the power to bless people and things; we may fear that,
when he performs these ceremonies of ordination, he may refuse to give such
powers. We may believe, we may fear, that he would say to himself: “Well, I have heard that in the old times, (when he grew up, because he is 70 something), they used to say that as a priest you receive these powers, but
those are, you know, magic,
things of the Middle Ages, and it is
just a slight of the hand, it’s just a kind of a superstition. And, therefore,
I'm not going to give that. It doesn't exist.” That's the big problem!
That is why we really have a
positive doubt about the validity of his ordinations. Because of the
possibility that he would refuse to give these powers because he doesn't believe
in them. Now, how many of those Bishops in the world, how many of them share in
that same unbelief? Where did he get that from? He got that unbelief from his
studies, when he was a seminarian, of course. That's what he learned in the new
seminaries. And so he is probably not the only one around who believes in these
things! And even if he said such things in 2005, eight years ago, he has not
been punished, nor disciplined by Rome
So this is the New Church Conciliar
Church
Because for the faithful, it would
be a grave sin for the faithful to receive a doubtful sacrament. It would be a
grave sin against the First Commandment for somebody to go to a church, and
having a doubt: “Is this priest really validly ordained? Is this holy host
really consecrated?” To go and to receive communion there, that would be a
mortal sin. If you have that doubt, and nevertheless, you say: “Well, it might
not be valid, but I will receive it nevertheless!” That is a grave sin against
the First Commandment. A grave sin against the honor and worship due to God,
because you accept to receive, and to give your adoration, to something that
may not be God. That's what moral theology says.
This is what the Society should tell
the New Rome: “Look at what you have done to your people! Instead of doing good to them, instead of blessing them, of wishing them well you have
taken away the blessings, you have taken away the protection from the medals,
you have taken away the valid sacraments! And you, yourselves, because of that,
you are on the road to hell!” This is what the Society should say!
We have to pray for the Society,
that their leaders, at the moment of their death, may not be accused by God of
participating, by their silence, in the sins of the Conciliar Church
In the name of the Father, of the
Son and of Holy Ghost. Amen.
*******************************
A Beautiful Prayer by FrVoigt embued with the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre
From the heavenly kingdom
Archbishop Lefebvre
7/13/2013 (Our Lady of Fatima)
By Father Voigt
My Dear Children begotten through the love of Mary,
On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Consecration of Bishops, I felt compelled to reflect with you on what is taking place among you.
Twenty-five years ago I followed the guidance of our Mother, the hammer of heretics, to preserve the Faith of holy Mother Church by consecrating four sons to the traditional vocation of Bishop. I asked you then to preserve the unity of the faith by your preaching, by the
Ordination of Marian Sons to the traditional priesthood and the true dispensation of the sacraments.
Now there is a division amongst you. The poison of Vatican II, which
Has brought death in its wake, is now at work within you. Return to your former love and unite under the banner of our Mother. Let your words be “Yes, Yes, or NO, No”, all else is from the evil one.
Here is the declaration you should adopt.
First, We, sons of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and of our dear Mother, declare our unified desire to crush all heresies afflicting the Faith. To this purpose we place all we do in the heart of our Mother Mary for our sanctification and the salvation of souls.
That is beautiful - thank you so much. It is exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre would say. May I please print it on my blog?
Second, to achieve this end we unite to condemn the poison of Vatican II and call for its universal rejection for its fruits have proven disastrous for Holy Mother Church.
Third, In no uncertain terms we reject the false ecumenism and profess that there is but one Church which brings salvation to this world, the Catholic Church of all ages.
Fourth, We remain united with all the Holy Fathers who have condemned the modern spirit (e.g. Pope St. Pius X, Leo XIII, Pius IX, Pius XII, etc) and have written to warn us of its dangers. For this reason we unequivocally bind ourselves to instruct the faithful concerning the Papal encyclicals such as Pascendi, the Syllabus of Errors, Humani Generis, etc.
Fifth, In union with the teaching of all times we hold that the truth is found in the collection of papal documents and magisterial teaching which are collected in works such as Denzinger-Schutzman. We are not seeking for the truth we have it and we teach it faithfully. In doing so we remain in union with the saints and the fathers of the Church and thus have a sure route to heaven.
Sixth, With our founder we uphold the true sacrifice of the Holy Mass begotten of God and begetting sons and daughters through this unique spiritual womb of Our Mother. The rite of the new order begets death to the Faith because it is the fruit of modern man.
Seventh, Our task now is to promote daily prayer, penance, and almsgiving as the reparation necessary prior to the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Now dear sons is the time to give of yourselves one hundred per cent by placing your hearts, your minds, and your strength in the womb of our Blessed Mother. Do all for her, through her and in her. She is the Rule of Life given you by the Holy Trinity. Regain your steadfastness and unite with each other in forgiveness and sacrificial love. Holy Mother Church needs you now more than ever to expose the demonic deceits in the world and in her.
Affectionately your father in Faith,
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
P.S. A Word to each of my sons:
Bishop Fellay: My dear son you have strayed from the true path and entered into a dialogue with modernists. The Church does not discuss--the Church teaches and you must humble yourself and beg forgiveness for the divisions you have caused. In submission you will gain your soul and the restoration of unity in the Society. Please consider this as essential.
Bishop De Gallareta: Dear son be committed totally to the Faith
and reject the compromising spirit which you have shown. Discipline
yourself and deny yourself the comfortable life.
Bishop Tissier: My dear son you know me so well and you have written our story so well and now there is a change in your spirit. Have you forgotten that Truth alone has rights and that we always were straightforward in all our conversations. Take the narrow way and achieve the kingdom of God.
Bishop Williamson: Dear son you alone have stood steadfastly with the Truth. But I hold this against you. The flock needs leadership and you have failed to guide with firmness. Your Faith is most necessary to arouse the faithful and encourage them in their quest for the kingdom of God. Lay down your life and you will truly live.
Preface To Open Letter:
While presenting in English Archbishop Lefebvre's recently published book (his only one apart from some collections of addresses), I feel there is a need also of some words of introduction to the author himself - so well known by the name, but so little known as he truly is.
Beginning life in an exemplary Catholic family of the north
of France Africa . For six years he was
also Superior General of his Order, the largest of the missionary
congregations.
So Archbishop Lefebvre is, first and foremost, a missionary bishop, and typical of what a bishop should be. His qualities are not showy, they are those of a Christian ruler, which is what a bishop is: reliability, straightforwardness, calmness, approachability, with the capacity for making decisions and sticking to them. Such a man would never, in ordinary times, have been controversial, he would have continued administering and inspiring day‑to‑day work of the missions until his eventual retirement to the position of "elder statesman." What brought him into the limelight, and made him an object of opprobrium - or admiration - all over the Catholic world, is the revolutionary situation in the Church - it is nothing less - that has been developing since the Second Vatican Council.
There is no need for me to enlarge on that situation now: it is the subject matter of this book, the first part of which is a factual study of what is going on in the Catholic Church, while in the second part, the causes of it are examined. Here readers will also find the answers to their questions about the author's personal involvement.
The Archbishop's wide experience makes his analysis an authoritative one. His writing has also a quality that may be unexpected, for all who have only heard about him - it is so eminently reasonable. If he is a "rebel;" (as we never cease being told!), he is an uncommonly calm and courteous one. If this comes as a surprise, it is because he has been given little opportunity to make himself known. He has been conveniently buried in silence, except when quoted as an example of obstinate backwardness, by all who are embarrassed by the accusations he makes, or simply the positions he adopts. In view of this, the publishing of this book is a belated act of justice.
He causes embarrassment in the manner of the little boy in Hans Christian Andersen's parable, who alone spoke the obvious truth: "The Emperor has no clothes!" Among the chorus of satisfaction at the renewal of the Church by Vatican II, the Archbishop asks what, precisely, this renewal consists in. And he points out the facts that can be shown by statistics: the dramatic decline in baptisms, confirmations and ordinations, in the number of monks and nuns, and of schools; not to mention the confusion among the faithful, especially the rising generation, about what Catholic belief is. In this situation, he asks first and foremost for truthfulness (which in revolutions is always one of the first casualties)-truthfulness as to the facts of the present situation, and also with regard to the established teaching of the Church. He knows that the blurring with a view to some immediate advantage is disastrous for the faith of Catholics, and unjust to the others for whose supposed benefit it is usually done. His frank acceptance of established doctrine gives the Archbishop's writing another characteristic that one is grateful for: its perfect clarity. He knows his mind because he knows what his faith is.
It is likely that some who read these pages will be alerted for the first time to the extent of the disintegration of the Catholic Church. If they are shocked into a realization that a revolution is in progress which, if it continues, will eventually engulf their parish also, they may nevertheless find some of the Archbishop's language a little exaggerated: he may seem too absolute. How, for example, can he calmly dismiss as unfit for Christian ideas like Liberalism, Religious Liberty and Socialism?
Here, a word of explanation is called for. We must remember that His grace is writing against the background of
A Catholic facing the evidence of disintegration presented here might well be tempted to despair. Archbishop Lefebvre does not despair because he knows that the Church, despite all appearances, is guaranteed by Our Lord Jesus Christ as being His chosen representative on earth, by which He conveys to all men the benefits of the Redemption. It is this unwavering faith that gives him what is perhaps his outstanding quality - the courage that was needed to stand firm, isolated, against the urgent pressures of those who were ready to welcome him with open arms in return for some simple compromise. So exposed a position is perilous and, and he has a right to expect the support of the prayers of those of us who recognize his special service to the Church: that of training priests and nuns who preserve the tried traditions that are the foundation on which an eventual, true renewal can be based.
Though responsibility for the translation is mine, it has been a team enterprise, which will have its sufficient reward in the appearanceof the book. Credit for it is due first to Mr. John Noon, who broke the back of the work, and also, for different sections, to Mr. Malcolm Potter and to Father Philip M. Stark; and not least to Mrs. Ann Nott for typing the scripts for printing.
Father Michael Crowdy 1986
To Index
*****************************
