Conclusion Three – The Society cannot trust Rome

  1. Conclusion: the Society cannot trust Rome

1.1.     The reality is that the Society cannot trust Rome. How could anyone trust men who are betraying us…men who are the Church’s destroyers. How could the Society trust such men when the Society knows that their purpose is to continue to destroy the Church! There is nothing that such men could “promise”, no “guarantee” that such men could provide that would make an agreement acceptable – and we know this. We know that the Conciliar Church has a new definition of “truth”, that truth (to the Conciliar Church) has been disconnected from objective reality. When describing liberalism Archbishop Lefebvre wrote[1]:

Things are no longer what they are, but what I think. In such a case, man disposes of truth according to his own taste. This error will be called idealism in its philosophical aspect, and Liberalism in its moral, social, political, and religious aspect. As a consequence, the truth will be different according to individuals and social groups

1.2.     How could the Society negotiate and agree with such men – for how long would they be “true” to the terms of an “agreement”, how long would it take before their interpretation of the agreement (of truth) would be different to the Society’s. The truth is that the Society cannot enter an agreement with Rome unless Rome recovers the truth of tradition. Any other view of the circumstances is simply illusion[2].

1.3.     To those who wish to refer back to the “conditions” and the “guarantees” I raise three simple points.

1.4.      Firstly, on what basis do you trust an untrustworthy person? On what basis do you accept a guarantee from an untrustworthy person, do you believe a politician when he says he won’t raise taxes. On what basis do you believe a man who by word and by act is participating in the destruction of the Catholic Church – when he says “come in, we can be friends”?

1.5.     Secondly, how could you “trust” such men when the same men tell us expressly that their purpose is in fact to convert the Society – both by their actions and by their words. As to their actions we know that all traditional groups who have entered into a “deal” with Rome have ultimately accepted modernism. As to their words, I refer to the following by way of example.

1.5.1.The Vatican issued a statement in 2009 that provided as follows:

For a future recognition of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, the full acknowledgment of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and of the same Benedict XVI is an indispensable condition[3];

1.5.2.               Bishop Muller, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (as reported in Catholic Family News) stated as follows:[4]

“One can only be Catholic if one fully recognizes the faith of the Church. This includes the Second Vatican Council, which is a particularly important teaching,” Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller said to Vatican Radio July 4 in his first and only interview since taking up his new post.

1.5.3.               Vatican Insider posted a July 2 interview with  Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia, newly-appointed Vice-Prefect of the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei.[5] In that interview Archbishop Di Noia says:

…”Vatican II repudiated anti-Semitism and presented a positive picture of Judaism. John Paul II took us further in recognizing the significance of the Jewish People for Christianity itself. This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept immediately. Convincing them will take time, and in this respect we will have to be patient.”

1.6.     Thirdly, I ask what does the “first condition” mean? The condition reads as follows:

Freedom to keep, to transmit and to teach “the sound doctrine of the unchanging magisterium of the Church and of the immutable truth of Divine Tradition”; freedom to defend, to correct and to reprove, even publicly, those responsible for the “errors or novelties of modernism, of liberalism, of The Second Vatican Council and their consequences”;

1.7.     I suggest that “the sound doctrine of the unchanging magisterium of the Church and of the immutable truth of Divine Tradition” means one thing to the Society and a completely different thing to Rome. For an example of what Rome’s interpretation might be, I refer the reader to the book “Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN“. At page 152 there is an extract which provides as follows[6]:

In 1984, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, granted an interview to journalist Vittorio Messori on the state of the Catholic Church. The interview was published in English in 1985 as The Ratzinger Report. In it, Cardinal Ratzinger forcefully reaffirms his opinion of the immense and positive work of Vatican II, whose genuine fruits he provides a guideline for achieving. He speaks specifically of Archbishop Lefebvre. The following excerpt is taken from Chapter Two, “A Council to Be Rediscovered.”107

August15,1984

Excerpts from The Ratzinger Report

Thus ten years before our conversation, he [Cardinal Ratzinger] had already written:Vatican II today stands in a twilight.….

There upon he [Cardinal Ratzinger] continued:Over against botht endencies,before all else, it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points.

From this Ratzinger drew two conclusions. First:It isimpossible(for a Catholic) to take a position for or against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself,at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils. And that also applies to the so-calledprogressivism,at least in its extreme forms.Second:It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-calledtraditionalism,also in its extreme forms.“”Every part is an choice destroys thewhole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as anindivisibleunity.

1.8.     I suggest that the “errors or novelties of modernism, of liberalism, of The Second Vatican Council and their consequences” mean one thing to the Society and a completely different thing to Rome. The truth is that Rome will not even admit the errors and certainly not the consequences. So then – what does the condition mean and what protection could it give. If the agreement were a commercial contract we might say it was “void for uncertainty” or “unenforceable because an essential term was not agreed” or “there was never an agreement because there was never a mutual intention to be bound”. However, I do not propose to argue the issue from a contract law point of view. I suggest that all I need do is apply some common sense. If two parties cannot agree what the sound doctrine is today or what the errors are today – then on what basis will they agree in the future! It is illusion!

1.9.     For the purpose of understanding what is different between Rome and the Society, and providing some meaning to the term “liberalism”  I quote the following extracts from Archbishop Lefebvre’s book, “They Have Uncrowned Him”:

 

Pg. 14 – 15

Therefore, let us open this book of which I am speaking to you: Liberalism and Catholicism by Father Roussel, published in 1926; and let us read that page which depicts Liberalism very concretely (pp. 14 – 16), adding to this a little commentary:

 

“The Liberal is a fanatic for independence; he extols it to the point of absurdity, in every domain.”

 

So there you have a definition. We are going to see how it is applied, what are the liberations that Liberalism insists on.

 

The independence of the true and of the good in regard to being: this is the relativistic philosophy of mobility and of becoming. The independence of the intelligence with regard to its object: being sovereign, the reason does not have to submit itself to its object; it creates it; whence the radical evolution of truth; relativistic subjectivism.

 

Let us emphasize the two key words: subjectivism and evolution.

Subjectivism means introducing freedom into the intelligence, whereas on the contrary the nobility of the intelligence consists in submitting itself to its object, that is, in the adæquatio or conformity of the thinking subject with the known object. The intellect works like a camera; it must fit with precision the intelligible touches of reality. Its perfection consists in its fidelity to the real. It is for this reason that the truth is defined as the conformity of the intellect with the thing. Truth is that quality of thought by which it is in accord with the thing, with that which is. It is not the intellect that creates the things; it is the things that impose themselves onto the intellect, such as they are. Therefore the truth of what is affirmed depends on that which is; it is an objective thing. The person who is searching for the truth has to renounce himself, to renounce any construction of his own mind, to renounce any idea of “inventing” the truth.

 

On the contrary, in subjectivism, it is the reason that constructs the truth: we have the submission of the object to the subject! The subject becomes the centre of all things. Things are no longer what they are, but what I think. In such a case, man disposes of truth according to his own taste. This error will be called idealism in its philosophical aspect, and Liberalism in its moral, social, political, and religious aspect. As a consequence, the truth will be different according to individuals and social groups. The truth is then necessarily shared. No one can claim to have it exclusively in its wholeness; it is made and it is sought after without end. It can be guessed how contrary that is to Our Lord Jesus Christ and to his Church.

Pg. 114

The Catholic Liberal declares, “What do you want? One cannot indefinitely be against the ideas of his time, row without ceasing against the current, appear backward or reactionary.” The antagonism between the Church and the secular liberal spirit, without God, is no longer desired. They want to reconcile what is irreconcilable, make peace between the Church and the Revolution, between Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Prince of this world. We cannot imagine an enterprise more blasphemous, and more dissolving of the Christian spirit, of the good fight for the faith, of the spirit of the crusade, that is to say, of the zeal to conquer the world for Jesus Christ.

Pg. 211

This is what we are living: since the declaration on religious liberty, the great majority of Catholics are convinced that “men can find the path to eternal salvation and obtain salvation, in the worship of any religion whatever.”[7] There again the plan of the Freemasons is accomplished; they have succeeded, by means of a Council of the Catholic Church, in “giving credence to the great error of the present time, which consists in… putting all the religious forms on to the same footing of equality.”[8]

Pg. 228

You see, the liberal mind is one that is paradoxical and confused, distressed and contradictory. Such indeed was Paul VI. Mr. Louis Salleron explains this quite well, when he describes the physical look of Paul VI: he says “He has a double face.” He is not speaking of duplicity, for this term expresses a perverse intention to deceive which was not present in Paul VI. No, it is a double persona whose contrasted countenance expresses a duality: now traditional in his words, now Modernist in his acts; now Catholic in his premises, his principles, and now progressive in his conclusions, not condemning what he should condemn and condemning what he ought to preserve!


[1] Archbishop Lefebvre’s book, “They Have Uncrowned Him” page 15

[2] Archbishop Lefebvre used the word “illusion” in 1989 when he said “We would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic.  That is a complete illusion. It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects…Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the world’s bishops who are progressives,  I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing…”;

Bishop Fellay has often used the term “illusion” when he has referred to the situation between the Conciliar Church and the Society. For example, in an interview given by Bishop Fellay in February 2011, and called “54 Answers from Bishop Fellay”[2], the following comments by Bishop Fellay are recorded “There is one danger: the danger of keeping up illusions. We see that some Catholics have managed to lull themselves to sleep with illusions. But recent events have managed to dispel them. I am thinking about the announcement of the beatification of John Paul II or the announcement of a new Assisi event along the lines of the interreligious gatherings in 1986 and 2002.”

[3] In a notice published by Vatican in 2009 http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/nota-della-segreteria-di-stato-seguito.html Authenticity would appear to be confirmed by the Remnant newspaper refer http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-ferrara-note_from_the_vatican_secretary.htm

[4] http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page46/muller.html article by David Kerr, Vatican City, Jul 6, 2012 / 02:24 am (EWTN News)

[7] Syllabus, condemned proposition no. 17.

[8] Leo XIII, Encyclical Humanum Genus on the Freemasons, April 20, 1884.