Home » Uncategorized
Category Archives: Uncategorized
The following recordings were made last Monday, during Bishop Williamson’s visit to Stella Maris Chapel in La Marque, Texas.
Apostolic Mandate read during the ceremony of Episcopal Consecration of Bishop Thomas Aquinas on March 19th, 2016, in Nova Friburgo, Brazil.
Translated by Brother Raymund of Pennafort, T.O.P.
At the beginning of the rite of the consecration the following dialogue takes place between the consecrating bishops and the Archpriest who presents the bishops-elect for consecration:
—Do you have the Apostolic Mandate?
—We have it!
—Let it be read.
We have a Mandate from the Roman Church, which in Her fidelity to Sacred Tradition received from the Apostles, commands us to hand down faithfully that Sacred Tradition—namely the Deposit of the Faith—to all men by reason of their duty to save their souls.
Now, on the one hand, since the Second Vatican Council until this day, the authorities of the Roman Church are animated by a spirit of Modernism which profoundly undermines Sacred Tradition to the point of twisting the very notion of Tradition: “they cannot bear sound doctrine, they turned their ears from the Truth and followed fables,” as St. Paul says in his second Epistle to Timothy (IV, 3, 5). What use would it be to ask such authorities for a Mandate to consecrate a bishop who is going to be completely opposed to their most grave error?
On the other hand, to obtain such a bishop, the few Catholics who understand his importance might have hoped, even after Vatican II, that he could have come from the Society of St Pius X founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like the four consecrated by him with a previous emergency Mandate in 1988. Unfortunately, observing that the authorities of the Society are taking that same Liberal road, constantly turning towards the Roman authorities, that hope appears to be vain.
From where then could these faithful Catholics obtain the bishops essential to the survival of their true Faith? In a world day by day more opposed to Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church, the danger seems so great that, as long as Peter does not convert (Lk. XXII, 32), it is the very Holy Church which asks us to come to the aid of the abandoned sheep, assuring them a sufficient number of true shepherds (Jer. III, 15) in so far as such necessity presents itself.
No presumption or assignment of episcopal power of jurisdiction accompanies this transmission of the episcopal power of Orders. And, so, when God intervenes to save His Church, to which there remains no human hope of salvation, the effects of this transmission and emergency Mandate will be handed over immediately into the hands of a Pope once more unequivocally Catholic.
Below is the Portuguese text of the Apostolic Mandate read during the recent ceremony of Episcopal Consecration in Brazil. A translation into English is forthcoming.
Nova Friburgo, Brasil, 19/03/2016
-Tendes um mandato?
-Que seja lido.
Nòs o temos da Igreja Romana, que, em sua fidelidade às santas tradições recebidas dos Apòstolos, nos ordena transmitamos fielmente estas santas tradições – ou seja, o depòsito da Fè – a todos os homens em razão de seu dever de salvar suas almas.
Ora, de um lado, as autoridades da Igreja Romana desde o Concìlio Vaticano II atè hoje estão animadas por um espìrito de modernismo que subverte profundamente a Santa Tradição atè ao ponto de perverter a noção mesma de Tradição: “Eles jà não suportam a sã doutrina, afastando-se de toda Verdade, aplicando-se às fàbulas,” como diz São Paulo a Timòteo em sua segunda epìstola (IV, 3-5). Que adiantaria pedir a tais autoridades um mandato para sagrar um Bispo que se oporà profundamente a seu tão grave erro?
Por outro lado, para ter tal Bispo, os poucos catòlicos que compreendem sua importância poderiam, mesmo apòs o Vaticano II, esperar que viesse da Fraternidade São Pio X de Dom Marcel Lefebvre, assim como este lhe sagrou quatro por um primeiro mandato de suplência em 1988. Infelizmente, observando que as autoridades da Fraternidade tomam o mesmo caminho liberal, remetendo-se constantemente às autoridades romanas, tal esperança se afigura vã.
E, então, donde esses catòlicos fièis obterão os Bispos necessàrios para a sobrevivência de sua verdadeira Fè? Em um mundo cada dia mais oposto a Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo e à sua Igreja, o perigo parece tão grande que, enquanto Pedro não se converter (Luc. XXII, 32), è a pròpria Santa Igreja que nos pede de vir em socorro das ovelhas abandonadas, assegurando-lhes um nùmero suficiente de verdadeiros pastores (Jer. III, 15) na medidad em que tal necessidade se faça presente.
Nenhuma presunção nem cessão do poder episcopal de jurisdição acompanha esta transmissão do poder episcopal de Ordem, e, assim, que Deus intervier para salvar a sua Igreja, à qual não resta nenhuma esperança humana de salvação, os efeitos dessa transmissão e deste mandato de suplência serão entregues imdiatamente nas mãos de um Papa de novo inequivocamente catòlico.
A conference-day is scheduled to be held in Connecticut next month. Details below.
“Confusion now hath made his masterpiece!” —Macbeth, Act II, Scene IV
Place: Danbury, CT.
Date: Saturday, May 14.
Time: 9:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Fees: Make a donation.
Meals: Breakfast and lunch provided.
Travel: Airport pick-up.
Please send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org if interested in attending.
Posted by Non Possumus—
The family has always had to fight to protect itself, whether from the beast in the forest or in the sea, whether from the barbarian invading the village or the industrial machine ravaging the city, whether from the electronic social network invading the private family domain or from man-made laws regulating partnerships for modern pseudo-families.
The family is a human institution that precedes the State. As G. K. Chesterton says, “Alone among all such institutions, it begins with a spontaneous attraction.” So it is not coercive. He continues:
“There is nothing in any other social relations in any way parallel to the mutual attraction of the sexes. By missing this simple point, the modern world has fallen into a hundred follies.
“There is no dispute about the purpose of Nature in creating such an attraction. It would be more intelligent to call it the purpose of God; for Nature can have no purpose unless God is behind it. To talk of the purpose of Nature is to make a vain attempt to avoid being anthropomorphic, merely by being feminist. It is believing in a goddess because you are too skeptical to believe in a god. But this is a controversy which can be kept apart from the question, if we content ourselves with saying that the vital value ultimately found in this attraction is, of course, the renewal of the race itself. The child is an explanation of the father and mother and the fact that it is a human child is the explanation of the ancient human ties connecting the father and mother” (The Superstition of Divorce, Part V).
Dysfunctional families, however, struggle to commit to their duties and obligations. Whenever the family falters, then the State could fill its functions. Indeed, the government can step in as a provider, an educator, an entertainer, a counselor, a caretaker—but there is no way that governmental entities can replace the natural process of the family. They can only interfere with it.
By nature one cannot replace the authority of the parents nor find a substitute for the bond between a husband and wife. And how could one undo the bond between a mother and her child? One can try but it will be a waste of time. The forces seeking a New World Order are trying to disintegrate the social order within the context of the family through an elevation of public education, and not only by the legalization of divorce and same-sex marriage, but also by practicing contraception and abortion. Nonetheless, try as they might, the family will survive as God intends.
Needless to say, the family has come into existence without legislation. In truth, it has always continued to exist without the legal support and will withstand any unnatural laws made by anti-Christian governments. Families may go from being ignored and neglected, to being attacked and torn to pieces. Notwithstanding, God has instituted the family, and (to quote Chesterton once more) “this triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.”
Now the “Kasper Proposal” disregards the essential element of the traditional family in order to adopt a new practical element of a new family structure, in accordance with the program of the New Evangelization preached by the Postconciliar Church; one in which conjugal fidelity, procreation and sacramental union are taken into a modern dynamic in marital unions.
Hence, Walter Cardinal Kasper advocates a path for divorced and remarried Catholics to be readmitted to Communion. His proposal was previously presented to a consistory of bishops in February, and once again in October 2014 to the Synod of Bishops. At the Synod, the German Cardinal Kasper led his proposal with papal support, which provoked strong reactions. Moreover, the final document of the 2014 Synod of Bishops was put to a vote of the complete assembly; they voted out the three paragraphs that addressed Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, cohabiting couples and same-sex partners. Yet Pope Francis insisted that the failed paragraphs be retained as footnotes.
A year later, during the 2015 Synod, there were more debates and justifications on the subject of the family, but ambiguity dominated every discussion. Nevertheless, the final official document has somehow inserted those previous words that were voted out. In particular, they are included in section 82, speaking about the nullity of matrimonial bond:
82. “For many of the faithful who have had an unhappy marital experience, investigating and verifying the invalidity of the marriage represents a possible course of action. The recent motu proprio Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus and Mitis et Misericors Iesus led to a simplification of the procedures in the declaration of nullity of a marriage. With these documents, the Holy Father also wanted to ‘make clear that the bishop himself in his particular Church, of which he is pastor and head, is the one who renders judgment for the faithful entrusted to him’ (MI, preamble, III).”
And subsequently, it has forged a pastoral introduction for those divorced and civilly married couples considering any kind of “legal union”:
84. “The baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried need to be more integrated into Christian communities in a variety of possible ways, while avoiding any chance of scandal. The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral care, a care, which might allow them not only to realize that they belong to the Church as the Body of Christ, but also to know that they can have a joyful and fruitful experience in it. They are baptized; they are brothers and sisters; the Holy Spirit pours into their hearts gifts and talents for the good of all. Their participation can be expressed in different ecclesial services which necessarily requires discerning which of the various forms of exclusion, currently practiced in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional framework, can be surpassed. Such persons need to feel not as excommunicated members of the Church, but instead as living members, able to live and grow in the Church and experience her as a mother, who welcomes them always, who takes care of them with affection and encourages them along the path of life and the Gospel.”
History certainly repeats itself. The 1968 Catholic world awaited the decision of Pope Paul VI on artificial means of birth control, when a variety of commercial and social interests built an expectation in the public mind that the Church must approve the use of “the pill.” Since then, contraception has been regarded as fine by many families! In like manner, today’s 2016 public opinion, both in the Press and on the Internet, is framing a discussion on the family as a pastoral need to resolve those social conflicts, not only concerning divorced and remarried Catholics but also about homosexual partners and cohabiting couples, who (they say) should not be marginalized by pastors and parishes. The family is indeed at stake!
As Traditional Catholics, it is important to re-establish parental authority in the two societies that Divine Providence has instituted for us—the family and civil society. A considerable part of knowledge comes from the authority that passes it on. A child has confidence in his parents, in his teachers and in his books: thereby his knowledge increases and solidifies. As children, we receive everything from our father and mother; even in all educational nourishment in the moral or intellectual domain, within either a private or a social scenario, our parents played an imperative role.
In this perspective, teachers help parents, in such a way that in the children’s minds teachers are sharing their parents’ authority. In other words, all the learning we obtain during our childhood and youth is received and accepted, rather than gathered by experience or by chance.
God intended that amazing influence of the family. This is the reason why He bestows on the father of the family such great authority and power over his family, his wife and his children. When a child is born, he comes in a state of extreme weakness so that we can appreciate the absolute need for the stability and indissolubility of the home, with both masculine and feminine figures.
The role of parenting has become very difficult today because the hectic style of modern living offers no spare time, nor common sense or discipline, at all. Professional obligations separate parents from children, and frequently grandparents cannot help as they used to do. So Catholic families are not only confused but also defenseless.
Human creatures usually live by following family traditions, as can be observed throughout the whole world. Therefore, Catholic parents must teach true religious knowledge, in practicing religion and in moral training according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Church, with all its traditions and customs.
Lastly, Our Lady in Fatima has given us several clues to help us wake up to the critical issues among which we live, and which we can relate to the minor prophet Zacharias’s words:
“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that cleaveth to me, saith the Lord of hosts: strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered, and I will turn my hand to the little ones. And there shall be in all the earth, saith the Lord, two parts in it shall be scattered, and shall perish: but the third part shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined: and I will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on my name, and I will hear them. I will say: Thou art my people, and they shall say: the Lord is my God” (XIII, 7–9).
This is why the Blessed Virgin Mary told Sister Lucia that she had to suffer much on behalf of the Holy Father, but “Finally, in the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph.” Indeed, it is a mystery of iniquity—the undermining of the family by the “Kasper Proposal” during the last Synod of Bishops.
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
Perhaps the rumored Personal Prelature proposed to the SSPX is part of a “practical” turnaround for Catholic Tradition towards its capitulation to Modern Rome. And the Year of Mercy, celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, is one more step towards a canonical regularization—lifting “in a practical way” the supposed suspension a divinis of those SSPX priests who were ordained by an “excommunicated” bishop from June 30th, 1988, to January 21st, 2009, without an individual statement of forgiveness.
Indeed, there are many priests seduced by a legalistic attitude. With their guilty conscience, they think themselves excluded from the Official Church, so that (lacking the stamp of the Visible Church) they desire to be reconciled with it. So, is Catholic Tradition to be only a part of the Ecumenical Industry, just one more point of view among many, as Pope Francis would have it to be?
For Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the salvation of souls was his primary aim insofar as Canon Law is concerned. Summa lex salus animarum—“The supreme law is the salvation of souls.” As the Church weakens, that aim is undermined. As Vatican II spreads its pastoral approach—even more with the madness of the New Evangelization—the Church’s visible structure shakes with a change that is yet fully calculated. As the Catholic Episcopacy waivers and betrays the Faith to any line of doctrinal reasoning, the saving of the souls in ordinary life becomes less of a possibility. That is why the Archbishop, looking at the crumbling foundation of the Church’s authority, said:
“Well, we find ourselves in the same situation. We must not be under any illusions. Consequently, we are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of Popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear, hesitation such as, ‘Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the Pope?’ Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition, if they were carrying on the work of all the Popes of 19th and the first part of 20th century, of course. But they, themselves, admit that they have set out on a new path. They, themselves, admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church’s life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point. They say it themselves. It is clear. I think that we must drive this point home with our people, in such a way that they realize their oneness with the Church’s whole history, going back well beyond the Revolution. Of course, it clearly is the fight of the City of Satan and the City of God. So we do not have to worry. We must after all trust in the grace of God” (We Must Not Waiver, conference to priests, September 6, 1990).
As a matter of fact, in 2006 the SSPX certainly was straightforward in saying that in approaching the Conciliar Church a doctrinal agreement, as opposed to a “canonical” agreement, was imperatively needed. However, the 2007 motu propio Summorum Pontificum conveyed a dialectical distinction between Ordinary and Extraordinary Rite, by which the Conciliar Church wanted us to believe that there is only one and the same doctrine of Mass but two ways to express it in celebrating “Catholic Mass.” Indeed, it was not a liberation of the Latin Mass rather a convalidation of the New Mass. In addition, the 2009 lifting of the “excommunication” of the four SSPX bishops included a sort of canonical agreement regardless of a doctrinal agreement, by which the SSPX emerged in a new status of being not in full communion with Rome. Last but not the least, there came the events of 2012: The three bishops’ letter, the response of the General Counsel, Bp. Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration on April 15, the 2012 (extra-ordinary) General Chapter, and a continual departure of some SSPX members….
There were twenty-two years after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre before the SSPX’s leadership revealed their vacillating attitude towards defending Tradition as the Archbishop did throughout his life, in particular during his episcopacy. Hence, their General Counsel openly communicated the following through the Superior General’s voice:
“In order to understand clearly the course that we are charting in this situation, it seems to us advisable to provide you with few considerations and observations: (1) Our principle position: the faith first and foremost: we intend to remain Catholic and to that end, to preserve the Catholic faith first of all; (2) The situation in the Church may oblige us to perform acts of prudence relative and corresponding to the concrete situation. The Chapter in 2006 set forth a very clear line of conduct in matters concerning our situation with respect to Rome. We give priority to the faith, without seeking from our part a practical solution BEFORE the doctrinal question is resolved.
“This is not a principle but a line of conduct that should regulate our action” (Bishop Fellay, Letter to the SSPX members, March 18, 2012).
It was openly clear that a shifting and a change of attitude were lurking among the leadership. As a matter of fact, three of the bishops were much concerned about it, to such an extent that they had sent a joint letter on April 3rd to address their concerns. The response from the General Council was in accordance with the new line of conduct and shamelessly belligerent. Therefore, Bishop Fellay, representing the whole SSPX de jure and de facto, formally handed out to the authorities of the Conciliar Church a Doctrinal Declaration, as a step forward for reconciliation, which in their essential elements are not up to Archbishop’s standards. Soon thereafter, the SSPX USA District Headquarters publicly released a video recording produced by the Catholic News Service: an interview with Bishop Fellay in Switzerland, which subtly conveyed the substance of the famous Doctrinal Preamble given by Pope Benedict. It was not up to the Archbishop’s standards either; instead it was a psychological coup d’etat within their ranks!
Among other things, the Preamble contained a proposal of Canonical Regularization for the clergy and religious members, in order to be “in full communion with Rome.” It has nothing to do with the laity. It is a legal structure within the Church in regards to Canon Law—a Personal Prelature. Let us see where the danger lies in such a proposal.
Personal Prelatures were an inspiration during the sessions of the Second Vatican Council in no. 10 of Presbyterorum Ordinis, on December 7th, 1965; and later Pope Paul VI installed this canonical instruction by the motu propio Ecclesiae Sanctae, on August 6th, 1966. In 1983 John Paul II incorporated the Personal Prelature into Canon Law as an ordinary structure by the canons: Can. 294, with the right of incardination within it; Can. 295, to open seminaries and to promote students to holy orders; Can. 296, to enroll lay members; and Can. 297, to define pastoral services with the local bishops, among others.
Thus, a Personal Prelature is a canonical structure of the post-Vatican II Church, which is comprised by a prelate, clergy and laity who undertake specific pastoral activities. Such a Prelature, similar to dioceses and military ordinariates, is under the governance of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops. Nevertheless, unlike dioceses which cover territories, a Personal Prelature—like military ordinariates—takes charge of persons as regards to some objectives and regardless of where they live.
However, the 1983 Code’s philosophical approach is one of marked moderation and pastoral activities. Being the new Code, it proclaims an interpretation with a new habit of mind. Many people learned in Canon Law have some reservations about the changes in doctrine and morals adopted after the Vatican II Council. Some proponents of the New Code were antagonistic to the Old, as a juridical way of accomplishing discipline in the Church. Instead they imposed a “spirit of the new canons” (See Jordan F. Hite, Readings, Cases, Materials in Canon Law, 1990). The New Code, they say, should complement the new mind, the novel way of thinking or mindset of the Church since Vatican II (See Canonist E. McDonough, A Novus Habitus Mentis For Sanctions in the Church, 1988). Therefore, to water down the principles of 1917 old Code in teaching doctrine and morals is a fundamental premise of 1983 Code. Their authors hope for an approach based on the Christian Community. For them, Law is not necessarily the work of canonists and primates, but rather it is a reflection of the spirit of the Modern Church, as John Paul II said:
“The instrument, which the Code is, fully corresponds to the nature of the Church, especially as it is proposed by the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in general and, in a particular way by its ecclesiological teaching. Indeed, in a certain sense this new Code could be understood as a great effort to translate this same conciliar doctrine and ecclesiology into canonical language. If, however, it is impossible to translate perfectly into canonical language the conciliar image of the Church, nevertheless the Code must always be referred to this image as the primary pattern whose outline the Code ought to express insofar as it can by its very nature” (Apostolic Constitution, Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, AAS 75, 1983).
There is actually only one functioning Personal Prelature, namely, the Personal Prelature of the Holy Cross, formerly known as Opus Dei, erected by John Paul II in 1982 through the Apostolic Constitution Ut Sit and ratified in 2002. Their members belong to the Modern system.
Consequently, what should Catholic Tradition expect from a canonical structure which is rooted in the false teaching of Religious Liberty, Ecumenism and Collegiality? Would such a “Coming Prelature” be a Trojan Horse for the SSPX and Tradition?
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
“There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of all nations, by reason of the confusion of the roaring of the sea and of the waves: men withering away for fear and expectation of what shall come upon the whole world” (Lk. XXI, 25–26).
Up to the papacy of Pius XII, the Society of Jesus was for centuries regarded, not only by Catholics but also by the enemies of the Church, as one of the most authentic expressions of Catholicism and as THE great defender of the Church of Rome. But when the reforms were carried out under the guidance of the Second Vatican Council, the Jesuits were behind lethal changes which transformed the ranks of the professional Roman clergy. This is critical in today’s drama, wherein both Church and World affairs “by reason of confusion” are playing out a horrible tragedy: the Society of Jesus and the betrayal both of Rome and the Society’s own Constitution: the betrayal, that is, of the essential ROMAN (Romanitas) element of Catholic Tradition.
From their foundation the Jesuits were remarkable for their speculative theology and for their missionary zeal throughout the whole world—leading in education, and battling to oppose the Liberal State with the splendor of doctrine and creativity. It all renders the well-known Society one of the most imposing phenomena in religious history.
It took time for the effects of the revolutionary innovations in theology and morals, inspired primarily by Jesuits through the 1950’s and 60’s, to become widely visible—one among them being the appearance of Liberation Theology, which means to liberate “Man” from God, so that the future might be liberated from the past, and the New Theology might be emancipated from the Traditional Theology, which was till then defined by Dogmas.
Needless to say, a few among the ranks of the Jesuits were able to see that “a coup d’etat is taking place,” after the post-Conciliar reforms Indeed, owing to their strict obedience, some fellow members, and the faithful, had no alternative but to go along with those changes, to such an extent that Modern Jesuits “wrenched the Society of Jesus from under us and turned [it] into some monstrous entity under the guise of good goals” (quoted in Malachi Martin, The Jesuits, pp. 13–14).
Certainly, the leadership of the Order had slowly implemented those novelties in the name of the Council. It was a simple matter to place men of like mind in charge of the organs of communication and authority within their Association. Roman Power was the reason for the change because power flows along with two fundamental and concrete issues—authority and purpose of it.
The master stroke of the Modernist Reformation has been to impose, in obedience to the directives given by Vatican II, the interpretations (Hermeneutic of Continuity) of the reforms inflicted upon religious congregations. As it was intended thereafter to adapt doctrine and government within the Society of Jesus to the modern world, so was it also with other religious Congregations, in spite of the betrayal of the by-laws of their Founders which this entailed. Thus it is today, in regards to the betrayal within and without Traditional Groups for opposing the errors and the Modernist interpretations of the Council, to the detriment of the Deposit of the Faith entrusted to Tradition as a source of Revelation, in the way defined by the Council of Trent.
Throughout history, the Church had endured the ups and downs of Jesuitism from its foundation until our times. For instance, in 1541 St. Ignatius was elected as Superior General by unanimous vote, as was the Belgian Charles de Novelle in 1682. However, the way of election for their Superior General was changed in 1946 when Jesuits gathered together on occasion of their 29th General Congregation. Up till then, in order to be a voting member it was required to be a professed Jesuit—i.e. a religious who, in addition to the three vows of poverty, chastity (celibacy) and obedience, has taken the fourth vow of special obedience to the Pope.
In this perspective, one can read in the Formula of the Institute as follows:
“All who make profession in this Society should understand at the time, and furthermore keep in mind as long as they live, that this entire Society and the individual members who make their profession in it are campaigning for God under faithful obedience to His Holiness, Pope Paul III, and his successors in the Roman pontificate….
“We are to be obligated by a special vow to carry out whatever the present and future Roman Pontiffs may order that pertains to the progress of souls and the propagation of the faith.”
Hence, the function of the Pope has been that of the ultimate Superior of the Society of Jesus. In other words, it was a legal entity imbued with the ROMAN MIND. Even after its forty-one years of suppression from 1773 to 1814, they put their original rules in accord with the Roman element back into action.
Jesuitism endured another trial among their ranks at the time of Pius IX, when their members confronted the pest of the Modernist mentality. It was defended by many of them, who were trying to reach the truth, they said! As a matter of fact, some Jesuits became Modernists; then they were put out of the Society, and excommunicated from the Church. This was the case of Fr. George Tyrrell: he was expelled from the Society in 1906, and excommunicated in 1907 (Partisans of Error, Michael Davies, p. 38). Nevertheless, the Jesuits had a very important role to play, not only in the development of the definition of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, but also during the First Vatican Council in 1870 with the pronunciation of the Dogma concerning the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.
On the contrary, after WWII Pope Pius XII had to intervene in 1957 in order to point out doctrinal and moral deviations within the Jesuit mind and demeanor. He said, “If Jesuits were not faithful to the substantials of their rules, if they behave in any other way, the Society as the Church and numerous Pontiffs in the past approved of it would cease to be.” The Pope and the Jesuits differed in what they thought Jesuitism should be. Although most did not know why this should be so, all still were, and wanted to remain, Jesuits; yet the progressive faction shaped a new mold for the Society.
By the time of John XXIII, the modern Jesuits emerged in different fields, like Fr. Arthur McGovern, a sociopolitical scientist, well known for his book Marxism: An American Christian Perspective. Also, Fr. James Carney was famous for his practical “dialectical conflict” which brought him to enroll himself as Commander of the guerrillas in Honduras: soon after he was put to death by the Honduran Army. Furthermore, Fr. Karl Rahner was a celebrity for his sarcastic criticism of the Papacy and Roman authority, in reference to what the Church had defined as basic and obligatory, which for him was optional and questionable. Without doubt, by the 1960’s he had portrayed a new Jesuit attitude with his book Unity of the Churches: An Actual Possibility, filled with the idealism of Immanuel Kant.
Among other personalities, there were Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, with his Cosmic Christ, and Hans Urs von Balthasar, known for his book Apocalypse of the General Soul, who founded the mixed Community of Saint John in 1940 with Adriene von Speyr. Then he decided to resign as Jesuit; from the beginning, he was bad news! Even worse was Henri de Lubac, French Jesuit from Lyon, with his book Meditations sur l’Eglise, and who with Jean Danielou wrought the Documents of Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes during the Vatican II Council. Augustine Cardinal Bea (born of a Jewish mother), as Jesuit, used to do the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius every year: in the 1960’s he declared in an interview that “in order to destroy an enemy, one must know it from the inside out, and there is no a better way to know the Catholic Church than the Spiritual Exercises.” He promoted and inspired the Document on Religious Liberty and the Document Nostra Aetate concerning the relations between Catholic and Jews, and was a member of the B’nai B’rith Lodge. Lastly, the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez endorsed his ideology and framed it in the structure of Liberation Theology, which preaches the New Humanity for the people of God based on the struggle of social classes. These personalities, with their own theories, were supported by Fr. Pedro Arrupe (Superior General), who used to be called the “black Pope” during the Second Vatican Council. He curiously suffered a stroke on August 7th, 1981, three months after the assassination attempt perpetrated against John Paul II on May 13th: after ten years of illness he died in Rome.
Unfortunately, Pope Francis (another Jesuit) is deeply immersed in such innovations from and following the Second Vatican Council. He is its genuine product—a Modernist Pope, who is working to break the Roman Element in the Catholic Church with his New Evangelization Program, which pretends to impose “the” Magisterium of Vatican II as dogmatic and irrevocable.
Let us read some words from Archbishop Lefebvre:
“Romanitas is not a vain word. The Latin language is an important example. It has brought the expression of the Faith and of Catholic worship to the ends of the world. And the converted people were proud to sing their Faith in this language, a real symbol of the unity of the Catholic Faith.
“Schisms and heresies are often begun by a rupture with Romanitas, a rupture with the Roman liturgy, with Latin, with the theology of the Latin, and Roman Fathers and theologians….
“It is this force of the Catholic Faith rooted in Romanitas that Freemasonry wished to eliminate by occupying the pontifical States and enclosing Catholic Rome in Vatican City. This occupation of Rome by the Masons permitted infiltration of the Church by Modernism and the destruction of Catholic Rome by Modernist clergy and Popes who hasten to destroy every vestige of Romanitas….
“This relentlessness against Romanitas is an infallible sign of rupture with the Catholic Faith that he [the Pope] no longer defends” (Spiritual Journey, p. 77–78).
Consequently, we can see that the Jesuits still have an imperative role in today’s crisis within the Church. They were screened by the PRELATURE OF THE HOLY CROSS, popularly known as Opus Dei; they are, however, back at the command of the Church’s affairs—but with a revolutionary attitude “by reason of confusion” which is not according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. “He that reads, let him understand” (Mt. XXIV, 15).
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
“And Jesus said to his disciples: When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that reads let him understand” (Mt. XXIV, 15).
To oppose error in matters of Faith, in order to keep the Deposit of Faith, we must follow Tradition and Holy Scripture. However, when heresy is not limited to a small group but tries to seduce the entire Church, then we must recur the rule of Saint Vincent of Lérins in regard to universality, antiquity and general consent. We must do so especially towards that cunning of novelty which has brought about the removal, not only of the sacred doctrine taught by Our Lord Jesus Christ, but also the holiness pertaining to liturgical rites of ceremonies in the House of God, within the terms of the sacred place for prayers.
Was, then, Our Lord Jesus Christ speaking about apostasy concerning the belief of the sacred ministers when serving in the sanctuary? Indeed, the way of prayer is the way of believing.
The neglect of the essential priestly sacredness in the teaching and practice of the Catholic Faith evolved to abandon the sanctuary itself. And what is offered in this sanctuary? It is the Mass, the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary. So the rejection of sacredness by the consecrated ministers points to a real crisis within the context of religious belief among those whose duty is to teach the Truth, as well for all of us who must be taught in order to obtain eternal salvation.
In fact, doctrinal blurring has always been a sign in times of crisis throughout Church history. For instance, St. Vincent of Lérins wrote referring to the Arian heresy:
“Such a situation happened when the poison of Arianism had infected not only a small portion of the world but nearly the entire world. At the same time as the majority of the Latin bishops allowed themselves to be seduced, either by violence or by deception, a cloud darkened minds to such a great degree of confusion as to take away the path they had to follow. But it was by preferring the ancient Faith to these perfidious innovations that all the true friends and servants of Christ preserved themselves from being infected by this plague.”
In addition, it was at the Council of Rimini that St. Jerome had written: “The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.”
What should we do when a new way of praying installs a new way of believing, where sacredness is not an integral part of religion? What should we do when the abomination is within the sacred place, infested with the smoke of Satan? What should we think when, one day, the traditional faithful will wake up to find themselves immersed in the New Religion of Man preached by the Modernist Rome?
Certainly, many Catholics are confused, due to the religious revolution of Vatican II. Several post-Conciliar Popes have remarked upon the deplorable changes. As Cardinal Ratzinger said, “The results of the Council seem cruelly to contradict the expectations everybody had, beginning with John XXIII and Paul VI: it was expected to produce a new unity among Catholics, but instead dissension has increased to a point where it has moved from self-criticism to self-destruction” (L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 9, 1984).
Needless to say, there exists a state of necessity for souls who have the right to receive from the Teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) the necessary aids for salvation, especially doctrine and sacraments. Hence, in the Catholic Church, as in civil society, it is conceivable that there should arise a state of necessity or URGENCY, which cannot be surmounted by the observance of positive law. Man-made laws may prevent crimes and vices, but they do not extirpate the roots of evil in the world, as religion can do.
With this state of things, is the New Evangelization Agenda a solution for today’s conflicts in the world? No, it is not, for the new evangelizer, Pope Francis, during his visit to the United States, begged for global immigration and for tolerance on behalf of disordered families; but in reality he opened a gate through which to introduce moral deviations in cultural customs, and helped to introduce a sort of invasion which threatens the beliefs and nations of Western civilization. Perhaps one day the world might wake up Moslem….
In truth, the Church is fostering a worse crisis by the lack of order, activity or endurance, in the domain of doctrinal and moral teaching, thereby harming our religious tenets in a considerable manner. Modernist Popes have contributed to the demolition of the Catholic Church. Nowadays Pope Francis is seriously taking the destructive attitudes of Pope Paul VI into action, thereby worsening the thickness and darkness of the “smoke of Satan” within the Holy Place. That’s why it is not surprising to hear about the Novus Ordo Canonization of Paul VI, scheduled to celebrate the occasion of the 45th Anniversary of the Second Vatican Council.
On the other hand, Canon Law considers the state of necessity as one of the causes which under certain conditions abolishes the “imputability” of the offence, which is thereby reduced to a purely material violation of the Law, because it is a state wherein the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law to save them.
In this regard the 1917 Code of Canon Law spoke of necessity. Yet it leaves the task of giving its words a precise meaning and understanding to doctors of jurisprudence. It is clear from the context that necessity is a state wherein the goods necessary for life are put in danger to such an extent that, in order to come out of such state, the violation of certain laws is inevitable, as was the case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 30th, 1988, when he consecrated four bishops to maintain Tradition in the Catholic Church.
Do we therefore agree that there still is a crisis of the Faith within the Church? Perhaps there might be people who would object, saying that there is an exaggeration of “super-dogmas.” That’s why we have to remind ourselves that in matters of Faith, he who doubts or denies even one single truth revealed or connected with Revelation, doubts or denies the whole of Revelation. He who doubts the source of Revelation consequently mistrusts what he has to believe. (See ST IIa, IIae, 5, 3.)
Let us again and again reconsider the warnings of Archbishop Lefebvre. Because intention reveals the final cause of human actions, the Archbishop was always wary when the Modernist Romans seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition. He feared that they were only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than maneuvers, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.”
According to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the character of the SSPX should be more than just to denounce the errors by name, but rather to effectively and publicly oppose the Roman authorities who have spread them. How will anyone be able to make an agreement and then offer public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? After having fought for around forty-five years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the Modernists and their pertinacity? Catholics today must resist this pretension. Nonetheless, there are clerics who strive to impose upon us an unacceptable way, which does concern a different doctrine, contrary to the traditional Catholic Magisterium. Let us continue to profess our Catholic Faith. Indeed, the crisis is not over, but rather is afflicting, more than ever, our essential element—the priest.
Here is the Archbishop speaking:
“Through obedience monks and nuns are made to disobey the rules and constitutions laid down by their founders, laws which they swore at their profession to obey. Hence comes the profound disorder, which reigns in the bosoms of these societies and in the bosom of the Church. Obedience in this case should be a categorical refusal. Authority, even a legitimate authority, cannot command a bad and reprehensible act. No one can force us to become Protestants or Modernists….
“[The priest] is at the very heart of this crisis and it is he who is its chief victim. For all that touches the Church, touches first the priest” (A Bishop Speaks, p. 101).
Let us wake up now, lest we awaken to a nightmare! Daydreamers, wake up from your fantasy of converting the Devil!
¡Viva Cristo Rey!