Category Archives: Synod on the Family

Bp. Fellay in latest interview: “Errors are killing the Church”

 

Speaking to Fr. Alain Lorans of the French Radio Courtoisie, Bishop Fellay discusses a wide range of topics, from Vatican II & Amoris Laetitia to the ungodliness of the modern government and the truth behind the latest talks between the Society and Rome. He also talks about the spiritual infertility in the modern church.  This man speaks so beautifully on the Faith and tradition, that it is well worth the read. I have posted his insightful interview from the Dici website, which you can read below. God bless Bishop Fellay & the Society of St. Pius X, and may our patrons keep them steadfast in the Faith always.

~Damsel of the Faith

http://www.dici.org/en/news/will-the-society-of-st-pius-x-be-truly-free-to-try-the-experiment-of-tradition/

Fr. Alain Lorans: Your Excellency, you have been the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X for over 20 years. Over this period of time, have you seen a change in the Church, in the Society, or in the world during your travels? You just returned from South America; where have your latest trips taken you? 

Bishop Bernard Fellay: My latest trips? First I went to the United States for the blessing of the new seminary. I also participated in a congress on the other side of the United States, the west coast. And then in December we had ordinations in Argentina. While I was over there I stopped in Peru to see how things are coming in Lima; we have a chapel there, too. Those were my two most recent big trips last year.

Fr. Lorans: Have you noticed an evolution over the last 20 years and more?

Bishop Fellay: It takes time to tell if something is really moving. There has been a certain evolution, but it is very gradual. Extremely gradual, practically imperceptible. I think there have been some changes, but the heart of the struggle – we will probably come back to this – the heart of the struggle is still the same. There are new elements and the battle of ideas has not changed. What has changed is men, or to be more precise, a generation has come and gone. The fighters of the early days are in a better world now – not all of them, but most of them. The older ones – I might say my generation (I was just in my twenties, and I remember it well) – the older ones lived in a much more aggressive climate than today.

But there is a new aggressiveness coming, but this time it is not coming from the Church – the Church is in such decline, there is no new aggressiveness, just the same things over and over. But with the governments, there is a sort of global ideology setting in worldwide; it is very left-wing and it is taking over; it wants to take over. It is the same ideas as always, but it is becoming more aggressive.

Governments increased aggressiveness towards the Natural Law

Fr. Lorans: In France we have seen “marriage for all,” “homosexual marriage,” and the “Gender theory.” Have you seen that everywhere in the world?

Bishop Fellay: Yes, it is universal.

Fr. Lorans: And are all the Catholics close to tradition protesting and fighting against these ideologies?

Bishop Fellay: There are not enough traditional Catholics to make up a political group or movement. An ideological group, yes. And there are others, the conservatives, who are reacting more or less. It depends on the countries. We try to help them, too, and even to participate, but it is different from country to country. We are in the fight, but perhaps not always at the head of it. From our point of view, of course, we are, because we always have something to say, but we cannot look only at ourselves. If we look at the overall picture, we are but a very small number. As far as numbers go, we have no weight, whereas as far as ideas go, we do. As far as the battle of ideas goes, we represent something very solid, and I think that is why we are feared.

Fr. Lorans: By whom? Who fears us? Who is afraid of tradition?

Bishop Fellay: Oh, everyone! I think it is very widespread. Certainly not just what we used to call the progessivists, or the ecclesial groups that tried to wreak havoc in the Church with Vatican II. They are there, they are still there, and that battle is still waging. But there are also those who helped inspire these changes in the Church or tried to establish them in the Church. And they are still as aggressive as ever, if not more so. It is easy to see that Freemasonry is behind these modern ideas. Something new that didn’t exist 30, 50 years ago is the homosexual lobby. At the time, it wasn’t very well known, it was rare, and no one talked about those things because they weren’t very well known. And then suddenly they came in like a wave, and they are trying to make everyone believe they are the majority. I do not think they are, but they have what they need to impose these laws that destroy society, because they destroy the laws of all society, the natural law. If things continue in this way, the world will die of sterility.

Fr. Lorans: Because there will be no more children?

Bishop Fellay: There will be no more children. People seek personal pleasure and have lost any sense of the common good, of a good that is greater than man, and to which each man must contribute – and that is called the common good. Everyone benefits from it, but it supposes everyone’s collaboration. The minute the personal good comes first, it leads to the destruction of society, and that is what is happening under our very eyes in the most stupefying way. I don’t think it is anything new. It began 20 years ago. Or maybe some 40 years ago. I think that 1968 was the start, but this anti-natural current was not yet visible. It came later, I think it came before the year 2000, in the 80’s and 90’s with what we call the New Age. That is when these new destructive ideologies came in.

The heart of the fight is the same as ever: it is the fight of those who are against God, who reject any law that does not come from men alone – the “social contract.” And yet it does not take much to see that there are laws everywhere. Take the physical laws for example; they weren’t written in nature by men. The same with human nature. There are laws that have to be followed for the normal development of human nature. There is no doubt about it: if you do not wish to respect them, it is like any law, any manual, any instruction booklet. If you have a washing machine and you do not wish to follow the instructions, well, you ruin your machine. And here they are ruining the human machine, be it the individual, the person, or society.

We are really coming to exceptional times. A time of dissociety. A sort of dissolution of society, a loss of the common good, the disappearance of the idea that there is a goal, that every society has a goal. And we have also lost the idea of authority, the need for an authority to unite men’s wills in order to reach this goal. Hence the need to submit to authority, and the need for authority to remain objective and not arbitrary. When you see how governments are behaving today, it seems like so many absolutely fundamental values are forgotten in favor of the individual or of whoever wishes to establish his own personal power or to keep his power. And we see this as much in society as in the Church. Today in the Church – and this is new – we are also witnessing a time of dissolution in the Church. The loss of unity in the Church today is absolutely staggering.

Sterility affects the Church

Fr. Lorans: You speak of a society marked by sterility in the most concrete sense of the word: no more children, no more fecundity; it is a form of suicide. And you even say that the Church is affected, too? Is she, too, heading towards a suicide through infecundity? Especially since there are so few vocations?

Bishop Fellay: Yes, exactly. We can see that adopting modern ideas, the modern mindset that came in with the Council – these ideas were at least latent before, and the Council more or less incorporated them, and so in the end they really entered into the Church with and thanks to the Council – these ideas of the modern world, these modern ideas have the same results. It may be less visible, but the result is there: empty seminaries, empty churches, convents, and religious societies that are extinct or going extinct. There are so many. It is a phenomenon that is very present today and that is parallel to what is happening in society. So far the Church seems to reject, more or less timidly, sometimes strongly, the attacks on the natural law. So there is still a struggle between the world and the Church. It still exists, so it is not exactly the same thing, but it is still a little bit of a parallel development. And we do not hesitate to say that when it comes down to it, the fruits, the evil fruits, come from the same spirit, the spirit of the world.

It is a spirit of independence from God, a spirit that wishes to free itself from the yoke of God’s law that is too harsh or too difficult. No more spirit of sacrifice: that is one of the marks of the modern Church. The Crucified Christ is taken off the crosses, they do not put Our Lord on the cross any more. They have taken Him down; they no longer want to see the Man of Sorrows. He has risen from the dead and Alleluia! But the world we live in remains a world of suffering, and oh, how we need to know that God Himself willed to share our sufferings, not only to lighten them, but to save us, to give these sufferings a redemptive value! But they have taken all that away and replaced it with a sort of new mysticism, the Paschal mystery. In reality, it is a mystification. It used to be very simple: there was Good Friday, when Our Lord died for us, for our Salvation, and then He rose from the dead because He is God. He is true man, He died. He is true God, He cannot die, and He rose again because He is God. Now they wish to forget death, they wish to forget that we have to go through death and mortification. They wish to forget it.

Fr. Lorans: They want to go straight to Easter Sunday and erase Good Friday? 

Bishop Fellay: The interesting thing is that in the economy of salvation, the order we have to follow to obtain salvation and eternal life, we have to die. That is what they no longer want. They want to obtain life without dying.

Fr. Lorans: So they refuse “unless the seed die?”

Bishop Fellay: Exactly. That is exactly it. That is the problem with the modern Church.

Fr. Lorans: And so the seed remains alone and bears no fruit. It becomes sterile.

Bishop Fellay: Exactly. They no longer bear any fruit and they have become sterile. It is all there. As soon as a conservative bishop opens a seminary in which he upholds order and requires a little discipline, the seminary fills up. But so few bishops have understood that. The others do not want to hear it; they prefer to remain sterile. And I am convinced that they do not understand why it doesn’t work. But we understand very well why.

Fr. Lorans: You say they refuse sacrifice; there was much talk of the family at the last Synod. Is it the same thing with the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia: a refusal of discipline, authority, the teaching of Christ and a sense of sacrifice?

Bishop Fellay: I don’t think it is out of principle. It is somewhat of an unusual event. I’ll try to explain it. What I see in our pope today, Pope Francis, is a care for souls, but especially souls that are rejected, so souls that are lonely, that are set aside or despised or simply in difficulty. What he calls the “existential peripheries.” So is it really the famous lost sheep? Is Pope Francis leaving the flock of 99 other sheep, thinking he is where he should be, taking care of the lost sheep? Is that maybe what he is thinking? I say maybe, I am not trying to give a complete answer. Let’s just say that we can see in everything he says that his attention is universal, he does not look only at the Faith. He looks at the homeless, immigrants, and prisoners. And yes, these are people who have been left aside by others, but one does not need the Faith to see that. One does not need the Faith to see that these people suffer. And then you have divorcees. They, too, suffer. And you have us, we are rejected, too. And in the end, we are all sort of in the same category, the category of those rejected by the common body. And he wants to care for those souls. He wants to try to do something. The problem is that for many of these souls in difficulty, they are there because they have butted heads with a law in one way or another.

So we have a pope who has a problem with the law that hurts some of humanity, so to speak, and who tries to see if there is not some other way, – not to get rid of the law, I do not think that is his idea – but to see if there is some other path for them. I’m trying to understand what he does, but it is not easy.

Cardinals’s dubia on Amoris Laetitia: work of public salvation

Fr. Lorans: It is so difficult that four cardinals voiced their doubts, saying that Amoris Laetitia presents serious doctrinal problems.

Bishop Fellay: And they are right. But look at how the exhortation is written – and that is the problem today – it opens up gray areas! The pope says things are not all black and white, some are gray, but the law is made to state things clearly! And it necessarily establishes a black and white, a yes and no. We know that in everyday reality, there can be exceptions, at least in ecclesiastical law – there is an important distinction between the law of God and the law of the Church, for God foresees everything, He knows all the circumstances, He knows all the situations men could find themselves in when He establishes the law, and His law has no exceptions: the law of God, His commandments have no exceptions. But in human law, even Church law, in other words the laws made by the Church, man does not have this infinite wisdom of God, and the Church knows there are bound to be circumstances in which the law, if applied, would harm souls, and these are exceptions, and in this black and white situation, we can say it is gray. When it is a matter of ecclesiastical law, the Church is ready to make exceptions very easily and very broadly; it is admirable to see just how broadly. But again, the law of God has no exceptions.

Fr. Lorans: So does communion for the divorced and “remarried” depend on the law of God or the law of the Church?

Bishop Fellay: The law of God. Our Lord explicitly spoke of the precise case of separated spouses. St. Paul said so clearly, – and when we say St. Paul, we have to be careful; he is one of the instruments of God who transmits the Word of God, so it is not St. Paul as a man, but God speaking through St. Paul. It is Sacred Scripture. In the Gospel and the epistles, there is no doubt, it is God speaking. It is God speaking through St. Paul. This law is very clear, there is no gray area: he or she who is separated from his or her spouse and lives with another in a marital way commits adultery. Our Lord says so (see Matt. 19:9). He has broken faith, his word given to his spouse; he violates this promise with someone else. It is a sin, and because this union is on the level of society, it is a public sin. Even if there are not many people around, it is a public reality. So it is a sin that is more serious because of the bad example, the scandal for others. That is why God, but also the Church, takes very severe measures: a public sinner, for example, is not allowed to receive burial in the Church. The Church is very severe. As well she should be, because it is about protecting healthy souls.

In fact, the problem we have today is that a certain number of bishops and priests have for years and decades blessed these false unions themselves. The Vatican even had to intervene in France to forbid these rituals . . . that still continue. That is what I was told in Rome. And for Rome to step in, it had to be pretty widespread. These are priests and bishops who have blessed people living in sin, and then you want to refuse them communion. It makes no sense! It is logical, but it is a logic in sin. And it is serious. Very serious.

The texts themselves are not going to be explicitly open to this perspective. In the text of Amoris Laetitia, it is not going to say explicitly: now we can give them communion. It is much cleverer than that. It opens the doors without stepping through them: others will step through them. That is what is so serious: where there was once a clear distinction between good and evil, it opens a gray area that does not exist. And then it says: within this gray area, each man is left to his own conscience or to who knows what. That is false! Simply false. So the cardinals who spoke out, we can say that they accomplished an extremely important work of public salvation. It is too bad they were so few, but I think that is part of human weakness. We know very well that there are many more, but the brave are not legion.

Vatican II and Amoris Laetitia present the same problem

Fr. Lorans: Cardinal Burke said we might see a form of fraternal correction from the four cardinals towards the Holy Father, but very recently, Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said that the Faith was not challenged in Amoris Laetitia and that [the dubia of the four cardinals] should not have been made public. What do you think?

Bishop Fellay: I think it is a perfect illustration of the problem we have today. We, the Society, with our objections to the Council. I think in a way it is the same problem. There are several levels. There is the level of the battle of ideas, and there is a second level, the level of those who spread these ideas, the people. And there is a back and forth movement between the two. You have people who see the problem but do not dare to say anything or to mention it for several reasons. Some distinctions are needed here: they do not dare to say anything because of the famous principle of the Holy Ghost’s assistance to the head of the Church. The Holy Ghost governs the Church through her head. The Holy Ghost cannot be mistaken, so it must be the same for the Vicar of Christ. Then, for lack of distinction and depth, perhaps out of superficiality or because it is easier, they begin to say, “Everything the Pope does is good.” Something he does cannot be bad. It must be good. Something he says cannot be false, it must be true. These are things we have been told about the Council. And even today, some reproach us, they tell us we cannot be against the Council. It’s not possible: it is a Council of the Church, there is the Holy Ghost, He is good, period, end of story! And we say that there are still problems. And they answer, “Yes, sure, some have misinterpreted the Council. But that is not the Council!” To which we answer, “Perhaps, but they understood it by going from the texts, and the texts were ambiguous!”

Those we speak with in Rome go so far as to admit, “Yes, it is true, some texts were ambiguous.” Even Benedict XVI in his famous speech to the Roman Curia before Christmas 2005 admitted: “Ambiguous texts were drawn up in order to obtain a greater majority, a greater consensus.” But they tell us that a Catholic has no right to read these texts in anything but a Catholic way. So he must eliminate all possible interpretations that go against what the Church has already taught, against the Faith. In theory, this is true, it is perfectly true, and it is exactly what we say. It is exactly the criterion Archbishop Lefebvre gave us on the Council: we accept everything in the Council that is faithful to Tradition. We accept everything that is doubtful or ambiguous insofar as it can be understood the way the Church has always taught it. And following the Archbishop’s example we say: there is a third category of documents that are not just ambiguous, but actually false. And since this category goes against what the Church has always taught – it is not our own little personal judgment; we are not Protestants; the Church had already spoken of these things and she even condemned many of the errors – we continue to condemn it, because the Church has always done so.

That is our position. We say, “In theory, it is perfectly right to state that the only Catholic way to interpret the Council is in the light of Tradition.” But the problem is that once this principle is laid down, they tell us, “That is the way it is, so everyone is interpreting it in a Catholic way.” But we answer once again, “Open your eyes, look around you! That is not what is happening. In theory, it should be like that, but in reality there is a huge problem. The reality is different.” That is what we see with Amoris Laetitia. You have Cardinal Müller who says, “This text does not go against the Faith.”.In other words, it can be interpreted in a Catholic way. Not only we can, but we must interpret it in a Catholic way. Those who do not interpret in a Catholic way are wrong. He doesn’t say it as clearly as that because if he did, he would be pointing a finger at his leader. What he leaves unsaid is extremely important . . . and the four cardinals rightly pointed out this gaping flaw in the doctrine that had been clear until now, really very clear. For the door that has been opened to the divorced and remarried had no right to be opened. Simply no right. And that’s why Cardinal Müller says, “We have not gone through the door, we have not abandoned divine law.” Officially, this is true, except that a certain number of Bishops’ Conferences have already shown the way out.

Fr. Lorans: And in a laxist direction?

Bishop Fellay: Obviously. And others, thank God, the Polish bishops, in a Catholic direction. So what happens? That is the present, the real situation. Faith and morals for a Catholic are on the same level. The Church and the Pope are infallible on these matters, if he wishes to call upon his infallibility. The teaching of the Church has always been: communion cannot be given to someone who is in a state of sin. It is very simple. So someone who is living with a partner as if married, which is necessarily a state of sin, cannot be given communion.

The only gray area, and it really is not gray, is that if these persons no longer live as a married couple but only as brother and sister – and today there can be some very complicated situations with all the reconstructed families, the children of both spouses, etc. For the good to be safeguarded, the good of the children for example, sometimes we have to tolerate two people living together under the same roof. And we tell these people, “If you wish to go to heaven, there is only one way: you have to live without sin. You have to live as brother and sister.” So not in the same bed, not in the same room, it is complicated, difficult, but at least you will be living without sin. And discreetly and privately we will be able to give you communion. But we have to be certain you are living as brother and sister, you have to be honest. This is God, and God knows everything. You can trick men but not God. Receiving communion is an act that signifies one’s union with God, and that one is at peace with Him. We must first go to confession before receiving Our Lord. And if we are at peace with God, then we can receive communion. But how many of these people who live as divorced and “remarried” couples, how many of them live as brother and sister? Some do, but it certainly is not the majority.

And so, to start making laws for these situations, classing them as a generalized situation, is a way of turning things upside down. It’s as if on the road, what counted was not the cars that drive correctly but the cars that have accidents. No. Laws are made so that cars will drive properly, not so they will run into each other. All the laws are made to avoid running into each other. It would be turning things upside down. Turning the particular into a universal. There is an inversion, and in the battle of ideas, this is terribly serious.

Are doctrinal discussions with Rome still useful?

Fr. Lorans: You said at the beginning that the battle of ideas is still the same as ever, and last year you declared after your meeting with Pope Francis that the doctrinal discussions would continue, that bishops would visit our seminaries and have discussions on things like religious freedom, ecumenism, and the New Mass. Are these discussions really continuing? And after what you just said, do you think these discussions are of any use?

Bishop Fellay: First question, are they still going on? The answer is yes; they are still going on. There had been a pause, but there needed to be, so we are going to start again, and continue the discussions. It is very interesting because we and Rome both want them. We want these discussions. Perhaps not exactly for the same reasons, but I think that in the end our reasons are similar. Why? Because for us it is very important, and we have said so from the start, when we said that we have a problem with some of the Council’s statements, not personally, but because they go against what the Church has said and done, against the teaching and practice of the Church. That is our problem. If you want to insist that the Church is infallible, you have to stick to the problem. If she is infallible, why could she suddenly contradict herself? So there are serious problems and they cannot simply be resolved by the authority argument. It is not enough to say that it is the authority speaking, so: Amen. Roma locuta causa finita. No. Obviously this authority – we admit it – can be infallible; it is an extraordinary privilege granted by God, but there is a condition! And that condition is for this teaching authority to be in keeping with a deposit, with all of the truths confided to her by God. And this authority’s mission is to transmit them. To holily preserve and faithfully transmit this deposit. So there is something absolutely objective that goes above and beyond this authority. It cannot arbitrarily decide what it likes and does not like about the deposit. No, it doesn’t work like that! That is the problem we present to Rome on these Council matters.

Fr. Lorans: In what you just said, we see your open opposition to Amoris Laetitia that troubles what used to be clear. In the same context, are the doctrinal discussions of any use?

Bishop Fellay: I would say yes, they are useful. Perhaps not immediately. But in the long run, ideas are what lead men. An error has tragic consequences in men’s lives, especially a doctrinal error. For a moral error, the consequence is more quickly seen. With a pure doctrinal error, it is more distant. If someone denies the Trinity, we see do not see the immediate practical consequence, or in what practical domain a moral fault will follow, but it will follow. It is impressive to see how closely it is all linked together. The Faith is like a sweater: every stitch has to be there. If you drop one stitch, the whole sweater comes unraveled. And there is nothing left in the end. So upholding the great principles in this confused situation we are living in, repeating them, even just repeating them, is already a very important work. We will not see immediate effects. But in the long run, it will gain strength, it will take over. But that means we have to keep fighting.

And so, in this sense, it seems capital to me that Rome agrees to discuss these things. Not only do they agree, they tell us: we need to discuss matters. And that, too, is something new ever since the last year and a half or two years. It is a position that is gaining strength: in these discussions, Rome does not try or no longer tries to force upon us the modern position on ecumenism, religious freedom, Nostra aetate, and even the liturgical reform. These four points have always been our great hobbyhorses, for the past 40-50 years, ever since the beginning. Well, now, all of a sudden, they are telling us, “Yes, we really need to discuss these matters.” First of all, they recognize that there have been errors, abuses, excesses; they do not go so far as to say that the conciliar text is wrong, but they do admit that something is wrong. They admit there are ambiguities that need to be eliminated. And Rome tells us explicitly, “These discussions are going to help us with that.” We are a little like a sort of catalyst to try to purify this magma of strange, false, mixed up, confused thoughts. And that is very positive.

But there is also another element that astonishes me and makes me very happy, and I would like to see – I hope someday it will show itself – yes, to see that what I am going to tell you now is really not just the thoughts of one or two people, but truly something that is taking over as the Church’s way of thinking. A short phrase sums up this novelty, a short phrase by Archbishop Pozzo who is our interlocutor in Rome, the secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, and who tells us that these matters like ecumenism, religious freedom, and even the liturgical reform and Nostra aetate are not the “criteria of Catholicism.” What does “criteria of Catholicism” mean? It means elements to which one absolutely must adhere in order to be Catholic. In other words, if these points are not criteria of Catholicism, then you have the right to think and say otherwise, and doing so does not mean you are no longer Catholic. And Archbishop Pozzo said that publicly. It is very important.

In my opinion, we are now going to see a debate arise for a time because of us. Will it be public or no, behind closed doors? But it is actually already here. A debate with the “super-progressivists,” those Pope Benedict XVI accused of trying to hammer into the Church that these points are absolutely obligatory. It is the Church of today, their foundation for the Church of today. And suddenly someone says, “Well, you do not have to adhere to that in order to be Catholic.” It is clearly crucial; it is a great struggle. If you look at the battle of ideas, this is an extremely important point. And so you have voices making themselves heard all over the place, saying that it is unacceptable to let the Society in with such a policy. We’ll see.

Canonical structure and freedom for “the experiment of Tradition”

Fr. Alain LoransSpeaking of letting the Society in, of course we can’t help thinking of the canonical offers that have been made; there was talk of a prelature and recently Bishop Schneider said he had invited you to accept the canonical propositions soon and not to be too demanding, or in any case, not to wait for everything to be perfect. Where does all this stand? Did you really receive this invitation? And in that case, would a doctrinal union become a secondary issue? What exactly is the Society’s position?

Bishop Fellay: As far as Bishop Schneider goes, he did write to me, but a long time ago now; a long time, I mean, perhaps a year ago. So I do not have anything recent from him. In any case, recently, no, I have not received anything from him.

Other than that, the structure is not the problem. The structure, I think, is well established; there are still some points, shall we say, some finer points. The main idea is, really, it is adequate, it suits our needs. So for that, I am satisfied. Again, there are details that need improving and matters that still need to be discussed. The problem is not with this structure that they are offering us. If that was the only issue, we would say “yes” in a heartbeat. But it is not the problem.

The problem is, once again, this battle of ideas. Is a Church that for 40 years has imposed a way of thinking, this modernist way of thinking against which we fight, against which, or because of which we were even declared schismatic and everything else, outside of the Church; is this Church ready, yes or no, to let us continue on our path?

Archbishop Lefebvre used to speak of “letting us make the experiment of Tradition.” Are they going to let us, yes or no? Or are they waiting for us at a bend in the road, are they going to tell us tomorrow that we “have to fall into line?” To accept what we have been fighting against for forty years? That, we are not about to give up.

So it is all there, really; that is where the question lies. With these new, more open attitudes, when they tell us some things are not required criteria for being Catholic, there seems to be a path opening up. Now, is it just a door, or is it really a path? Is it a safe path? I mean, are we really going to be able to continue as we are? For us it is obvious that this is not the end.

Error remains error. So we remain today, just as before, just as convinced that there are errors that have been spread in the Church and that are killing the Church.

And of course, we understand that it takes time to purify and remove these errors, we understand. Men cannot be changed just like that; all sorts of bad habits have been acquired now; even just bringing back the holy liturgy. We understand very well that it cannot be done overnight. So if things take time, that is one thing, but is the intention even there? Is there any intention to leave this way of thinking that was imposed at the Council?

And we see, at least in the authorized voices, shall we say, the leading voices, that they are saying, “No, no. No, no, we shall continue along the same lines.” So we remain outlaws. Well, tolerated outlaws, and we might even say, in the most astonishing way, with Pope Francis we are more than tolerated, but we remain on the outskirts.

So are things going to stay as they are? Are things going to move ahead? Or tomorrow are we going to be swallowed up by this movement that, once again, is killing the Church? That is the question. And until we have a clear enough answer, we cannot move forward.

Support from many bishops

Fr. Lorans: At the beginning of our interview, you told us that things have changed imperceptibly. Among these changes, we might mention the attitudes of Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider, or the Polish bishops who are fighting against a laxist interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. But have you personally heard from bishops who tell you, “Even though you are an ‘outlaw,’ ‘on the outskirts,’ what you are doing is important to us because we do not wish to contribute to the suicide of the Church either?” Is this sort of comment a dream or a reality?

Bishop Fellay: We have some contacts, yes. And they are even increasing. Obviously, it is not the vast majority. But we do have some. And that is a very important element in this battle, but perhaps within Tradition we do not have a very clear perception of it, because it is discreet. People continue to see that things are not good, and that is about it. They have a very hard time seeing something else that really is real and that for me becomes clearer every day: that there is – at least in some – a desire for renewal, for a return to Tradition to be precise. And so a certain number of churchmen protest, not as loudly as us, not as publicly as us, but as strongly as us on the level of ideas, they protest against the novelties. It exists.

I recently met with a bishop who on his own, for he had never celebrated the Old Mass – he discovered it with Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio, took an interest in it and studied it – on his own, he told me that with the New Mass, they had changed the “substance of the rite.” So all by himself, he came to this conclusion which is precisely our reproach to the New Mass. Well, there you have a bishop who comes to this conclusion, a bishop who is simply honest. Obviously, he draws conclusions and consequences for himself and for his diocese. And he is not the only one. I received a letter from another bishop telling me: “Hold strong!” on all these points: religious freedom, ecumenism, Nostra aetate, relations with other religions. When you say Nostra aetate it is not just the Jews, it is the Muslims, the Buddhists, and Hindus . . . all the non-Christian religions. It is much broader. And this bishop adds: “There are many of us in the hierarchy, many of us bishops think like you.” Obviously, they do not say so publicly, because they would be decapitated. But they think about it, they see the situation. And in fact, they count on us, they count on us as – it is a modern word, but let’s try to use it correctly – as a witness. To use a perhaps more traditional term, as a lighthouse, even if we do not wish put ourselves on a pedestal. They simply count on us to represent the light that was once the light of the Church. This light that has remained lit in our midst, they count on it. They say, “You take the blows, but we are with you. We support you.”

Fr. Lorans: Among these bishops who tell you: “Do not give in on ecumenism, on the liturgy, on religious freedom . . . ,” are there any French bishops?

Bishop Fellay: There are some, even if they are not quite as clear. But really, there are some! It is interesting to see. It is another universal phenomenon. There are some in every country, more or less, of course. There is a certain proportion – not very big – of bishops who are taking a second look at a good number of things today. Even if they are still in a system that holds them back and makes any reaction difficult since it immediately creates explosive situations that are difficult to control. There are many problems when it comes to knowing how to react, how to improve the situation. It is obvious that at a given time it will have to come from the top. And so long as the top does nothing, any reaction will be a source of conflict. We have known this for 50 years, but at a given time, God will make the supreme authority take the lead in this movement. Until then we have to hold strong. Of course, it is a question of prudence, so that our position may bear the most fruit. And that does not necessarily mean make the most noise. We have to understand that, too; it is very important.

Hasten the triumph of the Immaculate Heart with prayers and penance

Fr. Lorans: You say that we have to hold strong, and you asked the priests and faithful to have a great devotion to the Blessed Virgin during this year 2017. For the hundredth anniversary of the apparitions of Fatima, you launched a Rosary Crusade. Is this request for more fervent prayers a part of the battle whose outline you have drawn up for us in this interview? 

Bishop Fellay: It most certainly is a part of this great battle. And there is an element that we must never forget: the Church is not human. She has a human part because she is made up of men, but essentially, in her essence, in her nature, she is supernatural. She has elements, even fundamental elements that surpass men, men’s capacities, men’s reflections and men’s means. For the good of the Church and for our own good as members of the Church, if we desire the good of the Church, we must necessarily use supernatural means. It is the only way to fight this battle properly. And this battle obliges us first of all to call upon God Himself and His saints. The Blessed Virgin Mary has shown us so clearly that these times belong to her by the explicit will of God. We must have recourse to her, we must listen to her, and put her requests into practice. She tells us, “Prayer and penance, pray the rosary every day.” It is more important than ever. If you ask me, what we are seeing today is Fatima at its fullest. There are things we have not been told, but in the end, we shall see the triumph of Mary. God knows how. The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, by a papal act, an act of authority. We wonder how it is going to come about, but that is not our problem. We just have to beg for this triumph, to implore God: yes, that is our job!

 

 

 

“Who can accept Marriage?”

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/06/pope-francis-catastrophic-speech-of.html

The Pope blasphemes Catholic Marriage.

“They prefer to cohabitate, and this is a challenge, a task. Not to ask ‘why don’t you marry?’ No, to accompany, to wait, and to help them to mature, help fidelity to mature.”

Accompany them to what?  When the Church was in a healthy state and Popes taught the Catholic Faith, this would have meant to “accompany” them back to the state of Sanctifying grace, without which there is no life in the soul.  How do you “wait” on cohabitators to achieve a supposedly Catholic Marriage without admonishing them and warning them that they are living contrary to the laws of God and are bringing damnation to their souls, telling them that to amend this they must leave their sinful situation? To Pope Francis, cohabitation is the new marriage which ultimately means Marriage is meaningless and basically non-existent.  Is cohabitation to be raised to the permanence and holiness of Marriage? Are the pleasures of sin to be raised to the dignity of a Sacrament and upheld as a means to the end of fidelity and holiness?  Is Marriage too hard to live by now, with its duties, obligations and responsibilities?  What happened to picking up our crosses and following Christ?  Why do we have to pander to the pleasures of the people? The Pope, like those disciples of Christ who walked away from Him after He said that we must eat His Body, is ultimately saying concerning marriage, “this saying is hard. Who can accept it?” (John 6: 60).  Instead of accepting Christ and His teachings, it seems we have to be accepting of the modern culture that is entrenched in sin, all in the name of a false mercy and pastoral charity.

Fidelity does not exist in sin.  Cohabitation is unlawful and a blasphemy to the unity and indissolubility of lawful marriage based on fidelity to Christ and His Church.  If there is no fidelity to God by keeping His Commandments, there can be no fidelity to each other.  A lawful Marriage is a lifelong covenant and vow made before God by a man and woman. Anything else is a mortal sin and to see the Pope approving of mortal sin (of course this isn’t the first time) is a shameful disgrace.

Why don’t we take a refresher course?  The definition and meaning of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony from The Baltimore Catechism #3:

Q. 1005. What is the Sacrament of Matrimony?

A. The Sacrament of Matrimony is the Sacrament which unites a Christian man and woman in lawful marriage.

Q. 1006. When are persons lawfully married?

A. Persons are lawfully married when they comply with all the laws of God and of the Church relating to marriage. To marry unlawfully is a mortal sin, and it deprives the souls of the grace of the Sacrament.

Q. 1007. When was marriage first instituted?

A. Marriage was first instituted in the Garden of Eden, when God created Adam and Eve and made them husband and wife, but it was not then a Sacrament, for their union did not confer any special grace.

Q. 1008. When was the contract of marriage raised to the dignity of a Sacrament?

A. The exact time at which the contract of marriages was raised to the dignity of a Sacrament is not known, but the fact that it was thus raised is certain from passages in the New Testament and from the constant teaching of the Church ever since the time of the apostles. Our Lord did not merely add grace to the contract, but He made the very contract a Sacrament, so that Christians cannot make this contract without receiving the Sacrament.

Q. 1009. What is the outward sign in the Sacrament of Matrimony, and in what does the whole essence of the marriage contract consist?

A. The outward sign in the Sacrament of matrimony is the mutual consent of the persons, expressed by words or signs in accordance with the laws of the Church. The whole essence of the marriage contract consists in the surrender by the persons of their bodies to each other and in declaring by word or sign that they make this surrender and take each other for husband and wife now and for life.

Q. 1010. What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?

A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are:

  1. To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;
  2. To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;
  3. To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.

Q. 1011. Can a Christian man and woman be united in lawful marriage in any other way than by the Sacrament of Matrimony?

A. A Christian man and woman cannot be united in lawful marriage in any other way than by the Sacrament of Matrimony, because Christ raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament.

And the true nature of Marriage according to Pope Leo XIII:

“Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature… As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.” ~Pope Leo XIII, “Arcanum”, 1880 A.D.

It’s blasphemy to put the profane on par with the holy.

~Damsel of the Faith


 

The Knight of Tradition is adding to the post by giving us some important information on the subject of situation ethics, or in other words as I like to call it, the fruit of Modernism:

As Rorate Caeli adequately covered in the linked article above, such a line of thinking has been already indicated in a few of this Pope’s documents, especially in the infamous Amoris Laetitia; the relevant parts of which are restated below:

(Part of 33.) “Yet if this freedom lacks noble goals or personal discipline, it degenerates into an inability to give oneself generously to others. Indeed, in many countries where the number of marriages is decreasing, more and more people are choosing to live alone or simply to spend time together without cohabiting.”

293. The Fathers also considered the specific situation of a merely civil marriage or, with due distinction, even simple cohabitation, noting that “when such unions attain a particular stability, legally recognized, are characterized by deep affection and responsibility for their offspring, and demonstrate an ability to overcome trials, they can provide occasions for pastoral care with a view to the eventual celebration of the sacrament of marriage”.

On the other hand, it is a source of concern that many young people today distrust marriage and live together, putting off indefinitely the commitment of marriage, while yet others break a commitment already made and immediately assume a new one. “As members of the Church, they too need pastoral care that is merciful and helpful”. For the Church’s pastors are not only responsible for promoting Christian marriage, but also the “pastoral discernment of the situations of a great many who no longer live this reality. Entering into pastoral dialogue with these persons is needed to distinguish elements in their lives that can lead to a greater openness to the Gospel of marriage in its fullness”. In this pastoral discernment, there is a need “to identify elements that can foster evangelization and human and spiritual growth”.

294. “The choice of a civil marriage or, in many cases, of simple cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a sacramental union, but by cultural or contingent situations”. In such cases, respect also can be shown for those signs of love which in some way reflect God’s own love. We know that there is “a continual increase in the number of those who, after having lived together for a long period, request the celebration of marriage in Church. Simply to live together is often a choice based on a general attitude opposed to anything institutional or definitive; it can also be done while awaiting more security in life (a steady job and steady income). In some countries, de facto unions are very numerous, not only because of a rejection of values concerning the family and matrimony, but primarily because celebrating a marriage is considered too expensive in the social circumstances. As a result, material poverty drives people into de facto unions”. Whatever the case, “all these situations require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel. These couples need to be welcomed and guided patiently and discreetly”.

What is happening here is the promotion of Situation Ethics.  Although Pope Francis might have insisted to some, e.g., the SSPX, that he does not intend to change doctrine, it would seem that the doctrine could be “flexible” in “pastoral” application.

John Vennari on the definition of Situation Ethics:

http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/88cd932e0fb30da936d547131dbddacf-571.html

“What is situation ethics?

Situation Ethics is the rejection of the universal, binding, immutable norms of morality. There is no such thing as a moral act that is intrinsically evil, there is no rule that admits no exceptions. According to this false approach, the morality of an act ultimately depends not on objective truth, but on the individual’s given situation.

The early advocates of situation ethics (as well as contemporary advocates) rebelled against what they call “legalism,” “rigidity” and certain “fixed rules of morality that can never be violated.” Such an approach, as the 1960s advocates of situation ethics complained, “puts rules over people.”

Dr. Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991), the Anglican clergyman and principal proponent of modern situation ethics (who published the landmark 1966 book Situation Ethics and ended his days as an atheist), insisted that in a given situation, we need not always act according to objective morality, but rather, we “do the loving thing” based on the our given circumstances. The new pastoral approach coming from Francis’ Vatican delivers a new twist to the same error, claiming what is most important is to do the “merciful” thing, in light of the various “concrete circumstances” of the individual.”

Bp. Bernard Fellay on the application of Situation Ethics after the Synod on the Family:  http://www.sspx.org/en/declaration-concerning-synod-family     

“…In keeping with the natural law, man has a right to exercise his sexuality only within lawful marriage, while respecting the limits set by morality. This is why homosexuality contradicts natural and divine law. Unions entered into apart from marriage (cohabitation, adulterous, or even homosexual unions) are a disorder contrary to the requirements of the natural divine law and are therefore a sin; it is impossible to acknowledge therein any moral good whatsoever, even diminished.

Given current errors and civil legislation against the sanctity of marriage and the purity of morals, the natural law allows no exceptions, because God in His infinite wisdom, when He gave His law, foresaw all cases and all circumstances, unlike human legislators. Therefore so-called situation ethics, whereby some propose to adapt the rules of conduct dictated by the natural law to the variable circumstances of different cultures, is inadmissible. The solution to problems of a moral order must not be decided solely by the consciences of the spouses of or their pastors, and the natural law is imposed on conscience as a rule of action.”

As the Catholic liturgy and doctrine were significantly ignored or even rejected to a point by Fathers of the “pastoral” Second Vatican Council, Pope Francis, as a Son of the Council, is taking the next step in putting even basic morality under this “pastoral” treatment.  Let us pray to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts for the eventual triumph that is promised by Our Blessed Mother at Fatima!

~Steven C, “Knight of Tradition”

The heretical Amoris Laetitia

I will quote some of the content of this massive, uncatholic heretical mess that has come out of Rome and give a few meager words on it.

“297. It is a matter of reaching out to everyone, of needing to help each person find his or her proper way of participating in the ecclesial community and thus to experience being touched by an “unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous” mercy. No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.” -Pope Francis

Believe it or not, the Catholic Church teaches that those who die in a mortal sin go to hell forever. So, yes, people are condemned forever, Holy Father.

Baltimore Catechism:

33. What happens to those who die in mortal sin?

Those who die in mortal sin are punished forever in the fire of hell.

Mercy is extending to those who repent and are sorry for what they have done to offend Our Lord.

“301…The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.” – Pope Francis

Mortal sin is deadly and kills the life of grace in our souls.

Baltimore Catechism:

32. What does mortal sin do to us?

Mortal sin makes us enemies of God and robs of our souls of His grace.

Also, it’s no wonder people are ignorant, if what the Pope is saying is true. How often do you hear the sins of the day being condemned?  How often do you hear priests preach that adultery and cohabitation is a mortal sin?

“Chapter 8 – Accompanying, Discerning and Integrating Weakness   

Some forms of union radically contradict this ideal [of Christian marriage], while others realize it in at least a partial and analogous way.  The Synod Fathers stated that the Church does not disregard the constructive elements in those situations which do not yet or no longer correspond to her teaching on marriage …

The Fathers also considered the specific situation of a merely civil marriage or, with due distinction, even simple cohabitation, noting that … they can provide occasions for pastoral care with a view to the eventual celebration of the sacrament of marriage”.  (AL 292,293)

So, adultery is a union?  This is so ambiguous they don’t even specify what these forms of “union” are?  Is sodomy considered a “union,” as well?

Also, it seems we’re allowed to cohabitate since it might eventually lead to the Sacrament of Marriage? Mortal sin is not going to lead to a Sacrament.  Yet, according to this document these situations are not even mortal sin anymore, for it they called it that they would foil the whole purpose of this document, namely to excuse sin in the name of pride.

“The choice of a civil marriage or, in many cases, of simple cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a sacramental union, but by cultural or contingent situations.  In such cases, respect also can be shown for those signs of love which in some way reflect God’s own love.”

God’s love is reflected in mortal sin? I don’t think so.  This is bordering on blasphemy to suggest that God’s love can be found, in this context, outside of a valid Catholic Marriage. These supposed “situations” seem to take precedent over the salvation of souls, since the Pope fails horribly in this Document to state the absolute truth regarding these sins.  And for all the talk about all the good that is in the Document, a little poison poisons the whole cup.

“The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. (AL 298)”

Of course. Telling people that they are in adultery and need to get out of it is too “rigid.” What will the Pope do to ensure the salvation of souls? Very little of anything, it seems. Looks like we’ll be “discerning” our sins all the way to hell.  Then again, nobody is going there since, according to the Pope, no one can be condemned forever.

The indissolubility of Marriage is being totally undermined.

Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. (AL 301)

According to Divine Law and the Catholic Church, those living in adultery and fornicating are in a state of mortal sin, which does indeed deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, which is the life of God in the soul.  Truly, this Document goes against and mocks 2,000 years of the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church, not to mention the words of Our Lord in Sacred Scripture.

In footnote 351 of this document, it is suggested that those in a state of mortal sin can receive the help of the Sacraments “in certain cases.” Well, certainly they can receive Confession to restore the life of grace in their souls, provided that they will repent and leave their life of sin. But, this obviously is allowing Holy Communion for those living in mortal sin, albeit by the back door, which, for the Counciliar Church, “certain cases” will turn into the norm within a matter of time.  This is what certain Roman prelates have been promoting all this time and they know they cannot state it outright but have to hide it behind pleasing words.  Doctrine may not change, but expounding heresy and pandering to man’s pride of wanting to be “accepted as they are” ultimately changes belief.  If Rome realized that we deal with the supernatural in the Sacraments, in the Mass, in the Holy Eucharist, the very heart of the Church, I don’t think they would not do what they do. If Rome realizes that the Holy Eucharist wasn’t a happy meal for everybody and the Church a social club, I don’t think we would be at this terrible point we are at now.

What is there to achieve by excusing sin and abandoning people to their sinful lives, not telling them the truth and ultimately the means to achieve salvation, which is the very mission of the Church?

Advocating sacrilege against the Blessed Eucharist is akin to calling for the death of Our Lord over and over and over again, every time Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist is received by the soul in a state of mortal sin.

If you’re a Catholic, you need to defend Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and what His Church teaches regarding sin. You must reject this departure from the moral doctrines of the Faith. This ultimately comes down to upholding the truth of the Ten Commandments as being just that, Ten Commandments, to be kept and upheld as a sign of our fidelity and love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who told us to keep them.  Looks as if they are being turned into Ten Suggestions, if that.  The truth must be said and not excused or “interpreted in the light of tradition.”  What was written was written and is quite clear.  We have a war on our hands and this time, it’s a war for the moral edifice of the Church.

Enough is enough.

~Damsel of the Faith

**UPDATE**

The Pope was asked a direct question about Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried on his return trip to Greece:

“Some maintain that nothing has changed with respect to the discipline that governs the access to the Sacraments for the divorced and remarried, and that the law and the pastoral practice and obviously the doctrine remains the same; others maintain instead that much has changed and that there are many new openings and possibilities. The question is for one person, a Catholic, that wants to know: Are there new concrete possibilities, that did not exist before the publication of the Exhortation or not.”

He stated emphatically:

“I can say yes.”

For those still on the fence about the issue, even though it is plain as day what is going on, it is quite clear. Does the Pope know what sacrilege is?

***UPDATE***

This comment from ‘Athanasius’ was so excellent I had to include it here:

“damselofthefaith,

Your commentary on this is absolutely spot on. What the Pope is clearly attempting with this document is first to re-state the objective teaching of the Church, which is the divine teaching of Christ Our Lord, and then go on to undermine it with subjective specious argument.

All this talk of pastoral mercy depending on individual circumstances is just so much smoke and mirrors. The Church makes it clear that God writes His Commandments in every heart, which means that everyone knows the truth internally and cannot therefore claim to be ignorant of the divine law, or indeed the natural law. When a Catholic divorces a spouse and then goes on to marry someone else, they know exactly what they’re doing. The teaching of Our Lord in the Gospels about adultery is crystal clear to all who have an IQ above the average house plant. So this nonsense that the Pope espouses in his Apostolic Exhortation is precisely that – nonsense! The teaching of the Church cannot be altered either doctrinally or pastorally, so why this scandalous document, this back door to sacrilege?

Note how the Pope refers to “the ecclesial community” in his document. This follows from his oft-repeated error that “we are Church”. In other words, the Pope does not appear to recognise a divinely instituted hierarchic Church with unchangable doctrine and ordained priesthood to perpetuate the sacrifice of Our Lord and administer the grace of the Sacraments for the salvation of souls. His notion seems rather to be of a loose body of believers, kind of like a hippie commune in which all have a priestly dignity that is not to be distinguished from the ordained, celibate priesthood. From this notion stems the false idea, remarkably Lutheran in tone, that no matter what sins we commit, we are justified by faith in Christ and thereby saved. This idea does great violence to the true Catholic teaching that we must avoid sin, or at least repent of our sins, amend our lives and do good works. It is by the fruit, says Our Lord, that the tree is known, not faith. And again: “Not all those who say Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven. But those who do the will of my Father in Heaven, they shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven.

And what is the will of God? Well, Our Lord specifically says: “If you love me, you will keep my Commandments”. The martyrs sacrificed their lives rather than deny or offend God, yet Pope Francis asks no sacrifice from those who want to be re-admitted to Holy Communion, not even the sacrifice of repentance for mortal sin and a remedying of a sinful union. On the contrary, he says there is good even in sinful unions. Woe to the man who says good is evil and evil is good, say the Sacred Scriptures. It seems to me that this is precisely what Pope Francis is saying when he denounces divine revelation as “rules” and speaks of God’s grace being at least benign to the mortally sinful state of some souls. This is neither true love nor mercy we’re hearing from Pope Francis, it’s falsehood.

And as regards this devolution of authority from Rome to each diocese and parish to discern individual cases of divorced/remarried and other sinful union scenarios, we all know where that will lead. Very soon, like the illicit abuses of Communion in the hand and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, access to Holy Communion for those not in a state of grace will become commonplace and accepted as the norm. Those who object on the basis of the infallible teaching of the Church will be called “judgmental” and dismissed as merciless. What we are seeing here is the logical next step in the apostasy disguised as pastoral sensitivity. Supernatural Faith, it seems, has given place in many senior Churchmen to empty and emotional philanthropy. There is no longer any love of immortal souls or desire for their salvation.

Our Lord said to sinners that He forgave “go and sin no more”. On one occasion He even admonished a penitent not to sin again “lest some worse evil befalls you”. But what is Pope Francis saying? He is saying “come, feel welcome, feel loved, feel God’s mercy, feel included. There’s no need for you to change sinful situations if you don’t recognise them as such, or if it’s going to hurt. If you can’t receive Holy Communion (indicating mortal sin), you can at least read the Scriptures from the lectern. Oh yes, and that’s going to gain their souls entrance to heaven? It’s much more likely to pile guilt upon guilt, say the saints. God is not mocked!

Pope Francis would do well to heed this wise and prophetic warning of his predecessor, Gregory XVI, who wrote in his 1832 Encyclical Mirari Vos: “To use the words of the Fathers of Trent, it is certain that the Church “was instructed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles and that all truth was daily taught it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain “restoration and regeneration” for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune. Indeed these authors of novelties consider that a “foundation may be laid of a new human institution,” and what Cyprian detested may come to pass, that what was a divine thing “may become a human Church…”

And what about the equally prophetic warning of Pius XII: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith in her liturgy, her theology and her soul…I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past. A day will come when the civilised world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.” (Mgr. Roche, Pie XII Devant L’Histoire, p. 52-53).

I am sick to death of these Modernist Popes damaging our holy faith with their dangerous innovations. They are called to protect and hand on the faith unsullied, yet they seem to think that they have been especially gifted in our times to alter things according to their own confused state of mind and soul. Since Vatican II they have almost destroyed the Church with their Modernist falsehoods. As Archbishop Lefebvre once observed: The martyrs sacrificed their lives for the faith. Now they sacrifice the faith.” How absolutely true that observation was. The Catholic religion today is now barely distinguishable from Protestantism.”

 

Bishop Fellay’s Declaration on the Final Report of the Synod

Mgr-Fellay-DICI-decla

Bishop Fellay beautifully defends the truth on Marriage and the Authority of the Pope. A must read. God bless His Excellency!

http://www.dici.org/en/news/declaration-concerning-the-final-report-of-the-synod-on-the-family/

The Final Report of the second session of the Synod on the Family, published on October 24, 2015, far from showing a consensus of the Synod Fathers, is the expression of a compromise between profoundly divergent positions. Of course we can read in it some doctrinal reminders about marriage and the Catholic family, but we note also some regrettable ambiguities and omissions, and most importantly several breaches opened up in discipline in the name of a relativistic pastoral “mercy”. The general impression that this document gives is of confusion, which will not fail to be exploited in a sense contrary to the constant teaching of the Church.

This is why it seems to us necessary to reaffirm the truth received from Christ (1) about the role of the pope and the bishops and (2) about marriage and the family. We are doing this in the same spirit that prompted us to send to Pope Francis a petition before the second session of this Synod.

1 – The Role of the Pope and the Bishops[1]

As sons of the Catholic Church, we believe that the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ, and at the same time that he is the head of the whole Church. His power is a jurisdiction in the proper sense. With regard to this power, the pastors, as well as the faithful of the particular Churches, separately or all together, even in a Council, in a Synod, or in episcopal conferences, are obliged by a duty of hierarchical subordination and genuine obedience.

God has arranged things in such a way that, by maintaining unity of communion with the Bishop of Rome and by professing the same faith, the Church of Christ might be one flock under one Shepherd. God’s Holy Church is divinely constituted as a hierarchical society, in which the authority that governs the faithful comes from God, through the pope and the bishops who are subject to him.[2]

When the supreme papal Magisterium has issued the authentic expression of revealed truth, in dogmatic matters as well as in disciplinary matters, it is not within the province of ecclesiastical organs vested with a lesser degree of authority—such as bishops’ conferences—to introduce modifications to it.

The meaning of the sacred dogmas that must be preserved perpetually is the one that the Magisterium of the pope and the bishops has taught once and for all, and it is never lawful to deviate from it. Hence the Church’s pastoral ministry, when it practices mercy, must begin by remedying the poverty of ignorance, by giving souls the expression of the truth that will save them.

In the hierarchy thus instituted by God, in matters of faith and magisterial teaching, revealed truths were entrusted as a Sacred Deposit to the apostles and to their successors, the pope and the bishops, so that they might guard it faithfully and teach it authoritatively. The sources that contain this Deposit are the books of Sacred Scripture and the non-written traditions which, after being received by the apostles from Christ Himself or handed on by the apostles under the dictation of the Holy Ghost, have come down to us.

When the teaching Church declares the meaning of these truths contained in Scripture and Tradition, she imposes it with authority on the faithful, so that they might believe it as being revealed by God. It is false to say that the job of the pope and the bishops is to ratify what the sensus fidei or the common experience of the ‘People of God’ suggests to them.

As we already wrote in our Petition to the Holy Father: “Our uneasiness is caused by something that Saint Pius X condemned in his Encyclical Pascendi: an alignment of dogma with supposed contemporary demands. Pius X and you, Holy Father, received the fullness of the authority to teach, sanctify and govern in obedience to Christ, who is the Head and the Shepherd of the flock in every age and in every place, whose faithful vicar the pope should be on this earth. The object of a dogmatic condemnation could not possibly become, with the passage of time, an authorized pastoral practice.”

This is what prompted Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to write in his Declaration dated November 21, 1974: “No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries. ‘But though we,’ says St. Paul, ‘or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.’”[3]

2 – Marriage and the Catholic Family

As for marriage, God provided for the increase of the human race by instituting marriage, which is the stable and perpetual union of a man and a woman.[4] The marriage of baptized persons is a sacrament, since Christ elevated it to that dignity; marriage and the family are therefore institutions that are both divine and natural.

The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, which no human intention should prevent by performing acts contrary to it. The secondary end of marriage is the mutual assistance that the spouses offer to each other as well as the remedy to concupiscence.

Christ established that the unity of marriage would be definitive, both for Christians and for all mankind. This unity possesses an indissoluble character, such that the conjugal bond can never be broken, neither by the will of the two parties nor by any human authority: “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”[5] In the case of the sacramental marriage of baptized persons, this unity and indissolubility are further explained by the fact that it is the sign of Christ’s union with His Bride.

Anything that human beings may decree or do against the unity or indissolubility of marriage is not in keeping with the requirements of nature or with the good of human society. Moreover, faithful Catholics have the serious duty not to join together solely by the bond of a civil marriage, without taking into account the religious marriage prescribed by the Church.

The reception of the Eucharist (or sacramental Communion) requires the state of sanctifying grace and union with Christ through charity; it increases this charity and at the same time signifies Christ’s love for the Church, which is united with Him as His only Spouse. Consequently, those who deliberately cohabit or even live together in an adulterous union, contrary to the laws God and of the Church, cannot be admitted to Eucharistic Communion because they are giving the bad example of a serious lack of justice and charity, and they are considered public sinners: “He that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery.”[6]

In order to receive absolution for one’s sins within the framework of the Sacrament of Penance, it is necessary to have the firm resolution to sin no more, and consequently those who refuse to put an end to their irregular situation cannot receive valid absolution.[7]

In keeping with the natural law, man has a right to exercise his sexuality only within lawful marriage, while respecting the limits set by morality. This is why homosexuality contradicts natural and divine law. Unions entered into apart from marriage (cohabitation, adulterous, or even homosexual unions) are a disorder contrary to the requirements of the natural divine law and are therefore a sin; it is impossible to acknowledge therein any moral good whatsoever, even diminished.

Given current errors and civil legislation against the sanctity of marriage and the purity of morals, the natural law allows no exceptions, because God in His infinite wisdom, when He gave His law, foresaw all cases and all circumstances, unlike human legislators. Therefore so-called situation ethics, whereby some propose to adapt the rules of conduct dictated by the natural law to the variable circumstances of different cultures, is inadmissible. The solution to problems of a moral order must not be decided solely by the consciences of the spouses of or their pastors, and the natural law is imposed on conscience as a rule of action.

The Good Samaritan’s care for the sinner is manifested by a kind of mercy that does not compromise with his sin, just as the physician who wants to help a sick person recover his health effectively does not compromise with his sickness but helps him to get rid of it. One cannot emancipate oneself from Gospel teaching in the name of a subjectivist pastoral approach which, while recalling it in general, would abolish in on a case-by-case basis. One cannot grant to the bishops the faculty of suspending the law of the indissolubility of marriage ad casum, without running the risk of weakening the teaching of the Gospel and of fragmenting the authority of the Church. For, in this erroneous view, what is affirmed doctrinally could be denied pastorally, and what is forbidden de jure could be authorized de facto.

In this utter confusion it is now up to the pope—in keeping with his responsibility, and within the limits set on him by Christ—to restate clearly and firmly the Catholic truth quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,[8] and to keep this universal truth from being contradicted in practice locally.

Following Christ’s counsel: vigilate et orate, we pray for the pope: oremus pro pontifice nostro Francisco, and we remain vigilant: non tradat eum in manus inimicorum ejus[9], so that God may not deliver him over to the power of his enemies. We implore Mary, Mother of the Church, to obtain for him the graces that will enable him to be the faithful steward of the treasures of her Divine Son.

Menzingen, October 27, 2015
+ Bernard FELLAY
Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X

[1] Council of Trent, Session 4; Vatican Council I, Constitution Dei Filius; Decree Lamentabili, 6.
[2] Mt. 16:18-19; Jn. 21:15-17; Vatican I, Constitution Pastor Aeternus.
[3] Gal. 1:8.
[4] Gen. 2:18-25.
[5] Mt. 19:6.
[6] Mt. 19:9.
[7] Leo XIII, Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae; Pius XI, Casti Connubii.
[8] “Which [has been proclaimed] always, everywhere and by all”; Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium.
[9] Oratio pro summo Pontifice.

Teaching Authority of the Church

The Church must not conform to the world.  The world must conform to the Church.  The Church cannot continue to pander to the desires and passions of the world that is of its father, the devil. True mercy is to teach the world with authority what it must do and believe to be saved.

“For the preservation of the moral order neither the laws and sanctions of the temporal power are sufficient, nor is the beauty of virtue and the expounding of its necessity. Religious authority must enter in to enlighten the mind, to direct the will, and to strengthen human frailty by the assistance of divine grace. Such an authority is found nowhere save in the Church instituted by Christ the Lord.”   ~Pope Pius XI, “Casti Connubii”, 1930)

Very many in the Hierarchy have failed in their divine mission given to them by Christ when he said to go forth and baptize, teaching the nations all that Christ commanded them.  Those clamoring for the destruction of the doctrines of the Church, concerning marriage and the Blessed Sacrament are heretics and deserve to be excommunicated for their crimes against Our Lord’s Church.  Pope Leo XIII says:

“The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own.”   ~Pope Leo XIII, “Satis Cognitum”

Once again, the pastoral practice serves to uphold the doctrine.  Take away the pastoral practice and the doctrine is meaningless. This is the kind of evil that is being promoted in Rome at this minute.

Recently, the President of the Polish Bishops Conference, Archbishop Stainslaw Gadecki, warned that the heretical Bishops proposing sacrilege for the Church by allowing unrepentant adulterers in the state of mortal sin to receive the Holy Eucharist are in actuality really trying to change the doctrine through the back door.  http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/10/polish-bishops-of-course-liberals-want.html

Of course, we know that the doctrines of the Church cannot and never can be changed.  That doesn’t mean the forces of hell will not try in earnest.

Pope XIII again tells us that the Church is the guardian of morals.  Today, we’d think, because of the wickedness of these Judases in the Church, that the Church was the destroyer of morals:

The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action.” ~Pope Leo XIII, “Immortale Dei”

And when those in the very bosom of the Church are running off to their own ruin and death through their lies, cunning and wickedness, all the more must the true children of the Church stand up for Her and proclaim Her saving truth:

“We saw men and nations cut off from God, stirring up strife and discord and hurrying along the road to ruin and death, while the Church of God carries on her work of providing food for the spiritual life of men, nurturing and fostering generation after generation of men and women dedicated to Christ, faithful and subject to him in his earthly kingdom, called by him to eternal bliss in the kingdom of heaven.”   ~Pope Pius XI, “Quas Primas”

We must pray for the enemies of the Church in Rome:

“When have prayers not been offered in the Church, to obtain the gift of faith for infidels and for her enemies?”  ~Pope Pius XI, “Ad Salutem”

Wouldn’t it be absolutely miraculous, if the Synod Father proclaimed this truth on Marriage, as stated beautifully by Pope Pius XI:

The Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”   ~Pope Pius XI, “Casti Connubii”

What the heretics in Rome are proposing, such as Archbishop Cupich, is to abandon belief in the teachings of the Church in exchange for our private opinion.  If there is no absolute truth, then our faith is in vain.  How can a malformed conscience believe the truth if it is not taught to them, again, with authority?  Pope Pius XI calls this “private interpretation of the truth”:

“But everyone can see to how many fallacies an avenue would be opened up and how many errors would become mixed with the truth, if it were left solely to the light of reason of each to find it out, or if it were to be discovered by the private interpretation of the truth which is revealed.”   ~Pope Pius XI, “Casti Connubii”

Whatsoever He commands, He commands by the same authority. He requires the assent of the mind to all truths without exception. It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point.”  ~Pope Pius XI, “Satis Cognitum”

The Synod on the Family is nothing more than a ploy to attack the moral edifice of the Church, shaking the very foundations of the Church.  Up for debate are our timeless and unchangeable doctrines, as if our Church were a democracy ruled by the latest sins and desires of the people.  After all, it’s all about “accommodating” people living in mortal sin.  Yes, Bishops, send them on the way to hell.  When they get there, let’s hope they’re “accommodated” enough.  These heretics are playing with people’s souls.  They have no supernatural Faith or any sense of the supernatural, for that matter.  To see these Modernists seemingly triumphing in their wickedness, Pope St. Pius X must be rolling in his grave…

What we must remember during this grave crisis is that it is not the fault of the Church Herself if heretics spew their heresy on the faithful. The Church remains the ever spotless Bride of Christ.  It is her human members that can and often do fail.

“Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: ‘Forgive us our trespasses;’ and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health.” (Pope Pius XII, “Mystici Corporis Christi”

Remember your duty, Pope and Bishops.  Repent, convert to the true Catholic Faith and abandon your Counciliarism, your false religion of man.

“For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine [Eucharistic] Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Savior forever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.”   ~Pope Leo XIII, “Satis Cognitum”

The world perishes for a lack of knowledge. And this is laid at the feet of those who should be continuing the work of Our Lord, but instead are revolting against God, saying “Non servium!”

~Damsel of the Faith

Freedom to commit sacrilege

Flickr_-_…trialsanderrors_-_The_Roads_to_Heaven_and_Hell_religious_tract_ca._1896

The following is an excellent post from the excellent blog, “Veritas Vincit”:

“Another so-called Prince of the Church, Archbishop Blase Cupich, has come out in favour of disobeying our Lord’s commandments and doctrine and allowing not only those living in the mortal sin of adultery, but those practicing that unnatural and perverse sin of sodomy, a sin which cries out to Heaven for vengeance and from which the demons themselves flee, to receive the Body and presumably Blood (being in the Novus Ordo Church) of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.”

For more: http://veritas-vincit.com/2015/10/freedom-of-error/

Sacrilege upon sacrilege

Featured Image

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-cupich-lays-out-pathway-for-gay-couples-to-receive-communion

Archbishop Cupich, do you not understand that this will pile sacrilege upon sacrilege?  Do you not understand that handing over Our Lord’s Body to those in mortal sin is to “crucifiy” Him anew?  Do you not understand that you are sworn to protect the Most Holy Eucharist from profanation, as a Successor of the Apostles and  Alter Christus?

A pity you and those like you do not form consciences correctly, according to the mind of the Holy Church and not man’s personal whim.

“Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.”  ~1 Corinthians 11: 27-29

“In the frenzy of their conceited conviction that they know so much these blind leading the blind have even turned upside down the eternally true concepts of truth and religion; they have founded a new system and in their wild, unbridled chase after new ideas they have forgotten to seek the truth where it dwells in safety; holy, apostolic traditions are scorned and in their place other doctrines resorted to which are idle and empty and uncertain and which do not possess the sanction of the Church; and with such things they believe in their delusion that they can uphold and preserve truth itself.”  ~Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi

“For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”   ~2 Thessalonians 2: 7-12

This man just doesn’t care.  He is not Catholic.

~Damsel of the Faith