http://kentigernsociety.blogspot.co.uk/

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com.br/2013/05/entrevista-desaparecida-de-monsenor.html

 

The following article disappeared from the internet. I wonder why?

 

http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=1709098636&page_url=//sspx.co.uk/articles.php?articleid=347&page_last_updated=2006-09-08T22:54:25&firstName=Gregoire&lastName=Celier

 

 

Interview with Bishop Fellay by Father Gregoire Celier

 

The following interview is a translation from May-June 2006 edition of Fideliter magazine.

 

Fideliter: My Lord, could you resume for us the main lines of the Society’s development over the past twelve years?

 

Bishop Fellay: Happily. If one wants to resume in a simple way the material development of the Society in the course of these twelve years, one can say that it has doubled in size. First of all there has been an interior development, a reinforcing of that which already existed: chapels which become priories, which themselves become parish centres; schools which increase in size, etc. Then there has been a territorial development, although prudence dictated moderation here. This second development has nevertheless been important for whilst our priests reside in 30 countries, the Society henceforth covers 65 countries: which means that on average each country of residence takes care of another country also. But this simple quantitative description risks hiding something more important, namely the remarkable spiritual energy, which animates the Society as a whole: our priests, our faithful who build and renovate churches around the world. It is truly impressive for somebody such as myself these last twelve years to travel throughout the world. Again and again churches have developed or have sprung up like mushrooms!

 

Fideliter: What takes up most of the Superior General’s attention?

 

Bishop Fellay: It is difficult to answer because the office of Superior General is so varied. One answer, true but paradoxical, is that that which goes well takes up a lot less time than the problems. Often one is obliged to concentrate much energy on those things, which one would like to qualify as minor, but which are not minor, concerning as they do the whole issue of human relations, of human problems. That which concerns the Superior General essentially is obviously his leading the Society towards its proper end, leading souls to serving the good Lord.

 

Fideliter: Is there any particular sorrow, which has marked these twelve years?

 

Bishop Fellay: Without a doubt the sorrow of any Superior of a priestly society is the loss of priests! To see a priest distancing himself from our work, especially if this soul takes options which call into question his own priesthood, and to feel powerless to stop this separation, in spite of ones efforts and desires, is truly the main sorrow of the Superior General.

 

Fideliter: Is there anything in particular which has inspired you in the course of these twelve years?

 

Bishop Fellay: Of course! I should say that in spite of the difficulties of such an office, in spite of the sorrows which one inevitably encounters, so many things are uplifting. For, more than any other, the Superior General is in constant contact with miracles of grace, as much on the side of priests as on the side of the faithful. And it is this, which is heartening and indeed marvellous. (…)

 

Fideliter: The great development these last few years in the matter of communication is without a doubt the Internet. Do you think that the Society is well provided for and effective in this regard?

 

Bishop Fellay: Sometimes the Society is criticised for lagging behind technical development. On the technical level it seems to me that we are sufficiently up to date with things. The large districts of the Society possess viable Internet sites. We have an on-line news service, notably with DICI, quick and, to my mind, well adapted. Clearly it is always possible to do better, but I do not think that we are behind the times in this respect. Nevertheless, we refuse to become drawn into the (information) machine which keeps souls in a completely superficial, emotional state in which they are caught up by such rapidity of information as appears to require their immediate reaction without the time to think. There is a real problem here and I think that given the mass of information coming over the Internet, the faithful and even the priests should be taught to reflect before allowing their immediate and uncontrolled emotions to rule them to the detriment of good sense and the spirit of faith.

 

Fideliter: Before coming to the relations with Rome, about which much has been said these past months, it appears interesting to gauge the scale of the Society’s relations with different important parties within the Church. First of all are there any relations with other traditional Catholics (Ecclesia Dei, Campos etc,)?

 

Bishop Fellay: We have some personal contacts with one or other members of these societies, in general with the members who are especially close to us. But I must say that we do not particularly look for contact with those who declare that we are schismatic (and who are almost alone in the Church to do so). We consider simple polemics to be hardly constructive. Therefore if somebody chooses to maintain this hostile position in our regard, he will not in any event look to have contact with us, and neither would we with them. Do you think that in spite of everything �traditional� Catholics contribute anything to the Church? I think that Divine Providence makes use of everything. Notwithstanding what we would call Rome�s dubious intention in establishing these various societies, it seems to me that in the end it is Tradition which wins. Rome, I believe, attempts to destabilise us somewhat by setting up competition, but the good Lord uses these things so as to further the cause of Tradition and the Mass.

 

Fideliter: And the present contacts with the conciliar clergy?

 

Bishop Fellay: One can say that these last years have witnessed a tighter, deeper contact with an element of the official clergy, that things are going in the right direction, which is pleasing. It is worth recalling that this concerns an essential aspect of the Society’s apostolate: according to our constitutions we are meant to care for priests, for all priests. It is very consoling to see that one can do much, even now, to help modern priests rediscover the taste for Tradition.

 

Fideliter: I believe that in the USA there was a similar initiative to the French Letter to our brother priests and that this initiative brought about astonishing fruits.

 

Bishop Fellay: That was not exactly the same thing as the Letter to our brother priests. Rather it consisted in a book composed of priests testimonials on the Mass, and of liturgical materials for learning the Old Mass, which were sent to priests across the country. A similar endeavour took place in Great Britain with a send-out of a video on the Mass. Also, it is worth noting that the German district regularly publishes its own Letter to brother priests. These are the attempts to contact the clergy, which doubtless bear fruits, even if they remain discreet at the present.

 

Fideliter: Have the recent contacts with Rome changed the climate in the relations with the bishops?

 

Bishop Fellay: Undoubtedly Rome’s present climate bears an influence on a number of bishops. It is easier for me to meet them, to speak with them frankly and clearly. In addition, compared to a few years ago, the local superiors are better received by them. Whilst this is not a substantial change, neither is it negligible.

 

Fideliter: These last months you have issued numerous explanations on the relations with Rome in the course of conferences and divers interviews. Could you give a brief synthesis of these?

 

Bishop Fellay: I would like to begin by saying that there is no hurry. Some people in good faith believe that tomorrow there is suddenly going to be an agreement with Rome. And sedevacantist Internet sites unceasingly spread untruthful statements to this end, which only serve to increase the confusion. In reality any development will be slow, very slow in certain respects: it is not possible to come out of a crisis which began some 40 years ago after just a few weeks. People should realise that the procedure in question is complex and therefore long. Let us not have any illusions about this. In the year 2000 we submitted to Rome two prerequisites. We are now in 2006 and word has it that perhaps Rome is going to grant one or other of the prerequisites, maybe even both. We were asking for a first step, almost six years have passed, and this first step has still not been granted: hence we are not going to fret over the next move when the affair in question has not even begun.

 

Fideliter: You have alluded to a procedure in three stages?

 

Bishop Fellay: Indeed we envisage three stages towards a solution of the crisis: prerequisites, discussions and agreements. In order to have a clear idea of the situation it is necessary to grasp the nature and goal of these three stages.

 

The idea behind the prerequisites is the following. The Society, and consequently all that which is somewhat conservative or traditional in the Church, has been stigmatised by means of the alleged excommunications. The faithful and the priests who adhere to Ecclesia Deican say what they want, they can distance themselves as much as they like from us, but they suffer from the consequences of this stigma.

 

Hence we request that in the first place Rome ceases this negative game and restores to favour that which is traditional in the Church. This is the reason behind the much-vaunted request for the lifting of the decree of excommunication. It is also the reason behind the request for the public acknowledgment that the traditional Mass has never been forbidden and that every priest can celebrate it freely. It is a question of changing somewhat the anti-traditional climate, which has taken hold of the Church of today.

 

In this regard we speak of creating a new climate, one favourable towards Tradition within the Church. It is not simply a question of sentiment or positive publicity, rather it consists in very real actions which would render possible once again a life conforming to Tradition, theologically, liturgically and spiritually.

 

Fideliter: But if Rome were to accept these prerequisites?

 

Bishop Fellay: In this new ambiance (and it is important not to underestimate the openings which a frank and sincere granting of the prerequisites would create in the Church), it would be possible to move on to the second stage, namely the discussions. Here the great difficulty would be in getting to the principles themselves of this crisis, and not simply lamenting over the disastrous consequences of these same principles. As long as the principles remain untouched, the consequences will inevitably continue. I must say that at the present time Rome does not appear at all disposed to look at the principles, when one considers for instance Benedict XVI’s 22nd December 2005 speech in which he tried to rescue the Council from shipwreck.

 

This stage, namely that of the discussions, would be difficult, arduous and probably quite lengthy. What sort of time frame are we talking about? I do not know, it remains in the hands of the good Lord who could make things go quickly or slowly, but humanly speaking we are far from the end. In any event it is impossible and inconceivable to pass to the third stage before these discussions have succeeded in exposing and correcting the principles at the root of the crisis.

 

Fideliter: Does this mean that the crisis must be fully resolved before signing any agreement?

 

Bishop Fellay: No. We do not pretend to wait until everything is sorted out on a practical and human level, along with every last consequence of the crisis, everywhere and for all. This would not be reasonable.

 

However, it is obvious that we will not sign any agreements until such time as things are resolved on the level of principles. That is why we need to have in-depth discussions; we cannot allow ambiguities. The problem of wanting to make fast agreements is that they would necessarily be based upon hazy notions, and that no sooner signed would the crisis again re-appear with renewed vigour.

 

So in order to resolve the issue the Roman authorities would have to clearly and unambiguously manifest, for all the world to see, that there is only one way of coming out of the crisis, namely that of the Church fully rediscovering her own bi-millennium Tradition. The day when this conviction will be clear for the Roman authorities, even if things elsewhere remain unresolved, will be the time when agreements can be very easily made.

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

That alone is a newsworthy story. But consider who made the error, and that it is a material error. They will not help to sell the supreme teaching authority of the Papacy.

 

Even the liberal press denounces the error.

 

Naturally, the SSPX is silent, at least so far.

 

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?s=fc809254693dcb3713bfe8f595b609a2&showtopic=12456&hl=

 

 

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

In an article here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100218780/neo-nazi-holocaust-deniers-plan-takeover-of-sspx-claim-anti-fascist-campaigners/

 

the liberal Catholic press defends the SSPX  against the Resistance, by attacking the Recusant.

 

The Recusant responds here:

http://www.therecusant.com/conference-press-release

 

and with a comment here:

http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/26813795-the-recusant-under-attack-by-the-devil

 

The Recusant sent an Open Letter to Father Morgan here:

http://www.therecusant.com/letter-of-entreaty

 

Father’s disappointing response is here:

http://www.sspx.co.uk/

 

 

Why all the fuss?

 

Bishop Fellay is going to England to give a conference in an area well known to be unaccepting of his views on the new direction of the SSPX. The Recusant has launched a counter attack and has arranged a competing conference for the same day to outline the views of the Resistance. Fathers Pfeiffer, Hewko and Father Paul Kramer will be in attendance.

 

It would appear that someone noticed and wants to derail the conference. Please offer some prayers that Truth prevails.

 

For those who may not know, the Recusant has become the most useful repository of documents, articles and editorials for the Resistance and is run by concerned laymen. I strongly recommend this site.

 

http://www.therecusant.com/

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Two Analyses

18 May 2013

Here is a 5 part essay responding to Father Theman’s well publicized lecture:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-refutation-of-Fr-Themann-Resistance-to-what

 

In response to a question posted at this link:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/SSPX-Question

Sean Johnson offers this summary of the crisis:

 

1) There is not going to be a deal only because Our Lady prevented Rome from accepting Bishop Fellay’s scandalous doctrinal declaration;

 
2) However, the 2012 General Chapter Declaration still stands as an open invitation to the Romans as official SSPX policy;

 
3) And despite the Talleyrand spin represented in Bishop Fellay’s March, 2013 “Letter to Friends and Benefactors,” in which he seems to be talking traditional again, it is only because he does not perceive a deal to be possible at this time, because of ROMAN disinterest;

 
4) That 2012 GC declaration mutated the traditional position of the SSPX in dealings with Rome, and gave the green light to a merely practical accord, despite the persevering modernism in Rome;

 
5) Effectively, this places legal unity over doctrinal integrity;

 
6) The same General Chapter also produced 6 merely practical (and limp) conditions which, if met, would stand as surrender terms to Rome;

 
7) All of this is still on the table, but wait…..there’s more!

 
8) We have also seen, finally, the degree to which Bishop Fellay was willing to go in order to get legal recognition in his scandalous April-2012 doctrinal declaration, in which, among other things, he accepts that Vatican II is traditional (?!?), and all of that garbage must be accepted as traditional…even the heretical Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae;

 
9) So he accepts that heresy is traditional, in this particular instance;

 
10) He then writes a letter to BXVI, explaining his commitment to pursuing the path of a practical accord at the expense of considerable opposition within the SSPX, but vows to plow forward.

 
11) There is therefore a perpetual trust issue in place, so long as his administration remains in power.

 
12) We have his own words as the source of this distrust, and his own words acknowledging his revolutionary activity as a cause of division, which he dishonestly seeks to deflect to Bishop Williamson (for failing to go along with the revolution?);

 
13) Menzingen cannot ignore the existence of Bishop Williamson, because the latter is a thorn in their side by continuing to point out the truth; an embarrassment to the lie that is attempting to be justified  (just as the SSPX used to be a sign of contradiction to Rome and the false doctrines of V2);

 
14) They are so afraid of his existence, they feel it necessary to build a new seminary at considerable (and unnecessary) expense, just to escape the ghost of Bishop Williamson in Winona;

 
15) If there is a new formation of priests (SSPX-SO), it is necessary to preserve the apostolate of the original SSPX, to come to the aid of souls caught in a state of grave spiritual necessity; to preserve a valid priesthood; to preserve the integral corpus of Catholic doctrine; to warn the faithful about the slow-drip poison coming from Menzingen which endangers all these things; this latter is not possible within the framework of the neo-SSPX;

 
16) And that in itself is justification enough to found a new order which will allow priests to continue to faithfully serve God’s Church.

 
PS: With regard to the denial of Holy Communion: The neo-SSPX would say that it is justified in denial of Communion to notorious and public sinners.  They would be correct.  Problem is when they equate public resistance to the weakening of Faith and leftward drift in Menzingen as public sin.  I do not know enough about specific instances to apply the rules to the individual cases to opine whether withholding has been justified or not.

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

We are establishing communications with the German Resistance, as soon as we get the audio, we will forward them to you of Padres latest sermons.

 

The German Resistance will call you if you like, just to have a tie worldwide.

 

At the moment, we are exchanging e-mails. We will include you as well.

 

The Chief Administrator in Kansas City will contact you.

 

God be with you.

 

Viva Cristo Rey!

 

*Life 19

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Two encouraging items

11 May 2013

This sermon of Father Pfeiffer on two errors of Resistance is excellent. So is the reaction of the translator:

 

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?olf4rdpdsisadcj

 

Doctor David Allen White is working on a new book:
 

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Bishop-Williamson-Biography

 

This should be very worthwhile!

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Resistance Update

5 May 2013

As you know, we have Father Hewko coming next Sunday. If you want to hear what he has been saying recently, have a look at this channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/469fitter/videos?flow=list&sort=dd&view=0

 

Father Pfeiffer preached this sermon in Australia on the 24th to good reviews:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu5uvAVQS1I&feature=youtu.be

 

In it, he compares the SSPX (non-Resistance) priests to the prophet Jonah and details the lack of pastoral care offered by that prophet. He compares the SSPX priests of the eighties to the current batch and and concludes that the current group are too comfortable and lack the right attitude. He outlines how they got that way.

 

It looks like this youtube channel

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHLcFF9Vz3bK2RlLIRhp5jw/videos?live_view=500&view=0&flow=list&sort=dd

 

replaces one that has been closed (by NoelChristie). There are many sermons excellent from the tour of Australia here, as well as many Catholic movies.

 

Father Pfeiffer’s tour has had some unexpected results. In India, a chapel that hosted Father had their priest reassigned by Father Couture and advised that the SSPX would no longer provide the sacraments. The priest saw that the Faithful would no longer have the sacraments, so he joined the Resistance and will provide for them. The Resistance picked up a few Indian priests. (http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/25736385-resistance-breakthrough-in-india). Further, people in Australia who hosted him are being refused the sacraments. This may become a new trend, so those of you who still go to SSPX Masses should be aware of the likely consequences.

 

Bishop Fellay’s letter to the Pope last June (published in the Cor Unum of March) is available here:

 

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Complete-letter-between-Bishop-Fellay-and-Pope-Benedict-in-Cor-Unum-leaked

 

This letter clearly indicates that Bishop Fellay working towards a practical agreement in advance of a doctrinal agreement. The Doctrinal Declaration (http://www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012) indicates that he accepts the validity and the licitness of the NOM. As a result, one must conclude that the SSPX leadership no longer warns against our going to the NOM (since it is licit), conditional ordinations and confirmations are no longer necessary, the state of necessity no longer exists and therefore supplied jurisdiction no longer applies. The Resistance sees things a little differently.

 

When I asked one priest if he has read the Cor Unum, he indicated that is was junk. But, being a warrior, he will stay inside to fight. How does one fight while being slowly cooked?

 

Bishop Fellay promised an explanation of the doctrinal declaration would be published in the March Cor Unum. It has not been made available to the Faithful. We do not need to know?

 

If we can conclude that supplied jurisdiction no longer applies to the SSPX (according to the new approach of the leadership) then why do we not need to know? Is there a fault with this conclusion?

 

Why are people still going to the SSPX Masses? Yes, the Mass should be valid and graces are available. However, as indicated in the sermons of the Resistance Priests, God wants us to understand and conform to the Doctrine. If you have the Faith, graces will be provided. God likes to be generous. We cannot go where the Teaching is being watered down and may becoming a threat to our faith.

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Obedience

13 April 2013

March 29, 1988

 

The rector of the Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in Switzerland, Fr. Lorans, having asked me to help in drawing up this issue of the Letter from Econe, it seemed to me, in these circumstances, that it would not be without benefit to put before you again what I wrote on January 20, 1978, concerning certain objections which could be made as to our attitude with regard to the problems created by the present situation of the Church.

 

One of these questions was: ”How do you see obedience to the pope?” Here is the reply I gave ten years ago:

 
The principles governing obedience are known and are so in conformity with sane reason and common sense that one is driven to wonder how intelligent persons can make a statement like, “They prefer to be mistaken with the pope, than to be with the truth against the pope.”

 

 

That is not what the natural law teaches, nor the Magisterium of the Church. Obedience presupposes an authority which gives an order or issues a law. Human authorities, even those instituted by God, have no authority other than to attain the end apportioned them by God and not to turn away from it. When an authority uses power in opposition to the law for which this power was given it, such an authority has no right to be obeyed and one must disobey it.

 
This need to disobey is accepted with regard to a family father who would encourage his daughter to prostitute herself, with regard to the civil authority which would oblige doctors to perform abortions and kill innocent souls, yet people accept in every case the authority of the Pope, who is supposedly infallible in his government and in all words. Such an attitude betrays a sad ignorance of history and of the true nature of papal infallibility.

 
A long time ago St. Paul said to St. Peter that he was “Not walking according to the truth of the Gospel” (Gal. 2:14). St. Paul encouraged the faithful not to obey him, St. Paul, if he happened to preach any other gospel than the Gospel that he had already taught them (Gal. 1:8).

 
St. Thomas, when he speaks of fraternal correction, alludes to St. Paul’s resistance to St. Peter and he makes the following comment: “To resist openly and in public goes beyond the measure of fraternal correction. St. Paul would not have done it towards St. Peter if he had not in some way been his equal…. We must realize, however, that if there was question of a danger for the faith, the superiors would have to be rebuked by their inferiors, even in public.” This is clear from the manner and reason for St. Paul’s acting as he did with regard to St. Peter, whose subject he was, in such a way, says the gloss of St. Augustine, “that the very head of the Church showed to superiors that if they ever chanced to leave the straight and narrow path, they should accept to be corrected by their inferiors” (St. Thomas [in the Summa Theologica] IIa, IIae, q.33, art. 4, ad 2).

 
The case evoked by St. Thomas is not merely imaginary because it took place with regard to John XXII during his life. This pope thought he could state as a personal opinion that the souls of the elect do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment. He wrote this opinion down in 1331 and in 1332 he preached a similar opinion with regard to the pains of the damned. He had the intention of putting forward this opinion in a solemn decree.

 
But the very lively action on the part of the Dominicans, above all in Paris, and of the Franciscans, made him renounce this opinion in favor of the traditional opinion defined by his successor, Benedict XII, in 1336.

 
And here is what Pope Leo XIII said in his Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20,1888: “If, then, by any one in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law.” And a little further on, he says: “But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest while obeying man, we become disobedient to God.”

 
Now our disobedience is motivated by the need to keep the Catholic Faith. The orders being given us clearly express that they are being given us in order to oblige us to submit without reserve to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the prescriptions of the Holy See, that is to say, to the orientations and acts which are undermining our Faith and destroying the Church. It is impossible for us to do this. To collaborate in the destruction of the Church is to betray the Church and to betray Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 
Now all the theologians worthy of this name teach that if the pope, by his acts, destroys the Church, we cannot obey him (Vitoria: Obras, pp.486-487; Suarez: De fide, disp.X, sec.VI, no.16; St. Robert Bellarmine: de Rom. Pont., Book 2, Ch.29; Cornelius a Lapide: ad Gal. 2,11, etc.) and he must be respectfully, but publicly, rebuked.

 
The principles governing obedience to the pope’s authority are the same as those governing relations between a delegated authority and its subjects. They do not apply to the Divine Authority which is always infallible and indefectible and hence incapable of failing. To the extent that God has communicated His infallibility to the pope and to the extent that the pope intends to use this infallibility, which involves four very precise conditions in its exercise, there can be no failure.

 
Outside of these precisely fixed conditions, the authority of the pope is fallible and so the criteria which bind us to obedience apply to his acts. Hence it is not inconceivable that there could be a duty of disobedience with regard to the pope.

 
The authority which was granted him was granted him for precise purposes and in the last resort for the glory of the Holy Trinity, for Our Lord Jesus Christ, and for the salvation of souls.
Whatever would be carried out by the pope in opposition to this purpose would have no legal value and no right to be obeyed, nay, rather, it would oblige us to disobey in order for us to remain obedient to God and faithful to the Church.

 
This holds true for everything that the recent popes have commanded in the name of Religious Liberty or ecumenism since the Council: all the reforms carried out under this heading are deprived of any legal standing or force of law. In these cases the popes use their authority contrary to the end for which this authority was given them. They have a right to be disobeyed by us.

 
The Society and its history show publicly this need to remain faithful to God and to the Church. The years 1974, 1975 and 1976 leave us with the memory of this incredible clash between Ecône and the Vatican, between the Pope and myself.

 
The result was the condemnation, the suspension a divinis, wholly null and void because the pope was tyrannically abusing his authority in order to defend laws contrary to the good of the Church and to the good of souls.

 
These events are an historical application of the principles concerning the duty to disobey.

 
That clash was the occasion for a departure of a certain number of priests who were friends or members of the Society, who were scared by the condemnation, and did not understand the duty to disobey under certain circumstances. Since then, twelve years have passed. Officially, the condemnation still stands, relations with the pope are still tense, especially as the consequences of this ecumenism are drawing us into an apostasy which forced us to react vigorously. However, the announcement of consecration of bishops in June stirred Rome into action: it at last made up its mind to fulfill our request for an Apostolic Visitation by sending on November 11, 1987, Cardinal Gagnon and Msgr. Perl. As far as we were able to judge by the speeches and reflections of our Visitors, their judgment was very favorable indeed, and the Cardinal did not hesitate to attend the Pontifical Mass on December 8th, at Econe, celebrated by the prelate suspended a divinis.

 
What can we conclude from all this except that our disobedience is bearing good fruit, recognized by the envoys of the authority which we disobey? And here we are now confronted with new decisions to be taken. We are more than ever encouraged to give the Society the means it needs to continue its essential work, the formation of true priests of the holy, and Catholic, and Roman Church. That is to say, to give me successors in the episcopate.

 
Rome understands this need, but will the pope accept these bishops from the ranks of Tradition? For ourselves it cannot be otherwise. Any other solution would be the sign that they want to align us with the conciliar revolution, and there our duty to disobey immediately revives. The negotiations are now under way and we shall soon know the true intentions of Rome. They will decide the future. We must continue to pray and to watch. May the Holy Ghost guide us through the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima!

 
† Marcel Lefebvre

 

Source:  posted by LordPhan   http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Obedience

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Our Turn to Welcome

11 April 2013

http://ledoctrinaire.blogspot.ca/

Another Canadian site, unfortunately in French, which is promoting Father Girouard, particularly as editor of Communicates.

Welcome!

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |