However, the Pope is covering his tracks by not making dogmatic or anti-dogmatic statements. He himself writes in AL that its purpose is to “collect in-put from the two Synods on the family, together with further considerations capable of guiding thought or dialogue or pastoral practice.” This is professedly not a dogmatic purpose. Therefore it is difficult to pin on Pope Francis the ticket of “formal heretic.” But just as Vatican II professed to be merely a “pastoral,” i.e. non-doctrinal, Council, and yet it blew Catholic doctrine and the Church sky-high, so Pope Francis is in AF not professing that he is teaching doctrine, and yet he is blowing Catholic morals and the family sky-high. It is the classic Communist or Neo-modernist means of subversion, using practicalities to undermine truth, not in principle but in practice. Compare Rome to Bishop Fellay: “Get practical recognition first, we’ll talk about doctrine afterwards.” Compare Bishop Fellay to the SSPX: “We are not changing doctrine,” while he himself is hardly breathing a word of criticism any more of Pope Francis’ destruction of the Church. Would Archbishop Lefebvre have kept silent? To ask the question is to answer it.
Fr Gleize concludes that Pope Francis may not be a “formal heretic,” but he is certainly “favouring heresy.” “Formal heretic” should be the worse of the two tickets, but not at this wrong end of the Church’s Fifth Age, when the hypocrisy of the Church’s enemies is more refined than ever. Heaven help us more than ever! Pray the Fifteen Mystery Rosary every day!
https://stmarcelinitiative.com/refined-hypocrisy/
https://stmarcelinitiative.com/benevolent-ally/
I am convinced that in the present circumstances, Msgr. Lefebvre would accept Rome’s canonical proposal of a Personal Prelature without hesitation.
Your Excellency, that is impossible.
For several years already the authorities of the Society - they no longer cloak themselves - have been organizing a reunification with Apostate Rome. Is it legitimate to place oneself under authorities who do not have our Faith, or to accept from them a recognition, so long as they demand “no compromise”?
＊＊＊
Archbishop Lefebvre not write in his Spiritual Journey, his testament to his priests, “It is the strictduty of every priest and layman wishing to remain Catholic to separate himself clearly from the Conciliar Church, for so long as she does not profess the tradition of the Church’s Magisterium and of the Catholic Faith,”
＊＊＊
The new direction of our Society is imposed on priests, on many priests who have never desired it. Enforced silences, transfers, promotions, trials, threats, promises, exclusions, all become justifiable when they work do defend the “position of the Society,” which is in fact - as always in a revolution - the position of a minority which has taken power and which deftly manipulates the passive majority.
＊＊＊
Many clear-sighted priests do not dare for now to act against the imposition. I believe the principal reason restraining them is the fear of breaking the unity of the institutions that have with such difficulty been built up. How accept that in dividing the faithful, we risk contributing to the closure of a chapel? The reply is that faithful priests are not the origin of the division brewing in our ranks, but the very authorities of the Society, who would have us believe that we are participating in a turning point in the situation of the Church, when in fact it is not the situation that has changed, but only their minds. Dear brothers, if the directors of the Society continue to sow distrust and confusion by their mistaken ideas, the division will swell, and it may become necessary to burst it open in our region for the common good.
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.jp/2016/06/fr-pierre-roys-open-letter.html
http://stmarcelinitiative.com/bishops-declaration-i/
http://stmarcelinitiative.com/bishops-declaration-ii/
中世 教会の勝利
16世紀 プロテスタントが教会を拒む
18世紀 リベラリズムがイエズス・キリストを拒む
20世紀 共産主義が神を拒む
V2 現代社会が教会に入り込む
宗教の自由 人間の尊厳を高めることで、人間を神より上に置く
コレジアリティ（集団主義） 民主主義により教会の権威を崩す
エキュメニズム（宗教統一） 偽の宗教を讃えることで、イエズス・キリストの神性の否定をほのめかす
21世紀 ミサの変更
教会の「悪魔的誤導」（ルチア修女）に対する伝統保持としての十世会
十世会の「誤導」に対する伝統保持としてのレジスタンス
BISHOPS VALID? – IIFebruary 27, 2016
Number CDL (450)
The Newchurch is ambiguous, through and through,
But innocent souls within it still we view.
A recent study by a competent Society of St Pius X theologian concerning the validity of the Newrite of Consecration of Newbishops introduced in 1969, provides remarkable confirmation of the second point of Freemasonry’s three-point plan to destroy the Catholic Church, which the dying Cardinal Liénart (1884–1973) allegedly revealed on his death-bed. The Cardinal was a leading neo-modernist at Vatican II, and surely a Freemason himself. Before quoting from the summary of the Cardinal’s testimony which appeared in these “Comments” (#121 of October 31, 2009), let us remind readers that the validity of a Catholic sacrament requires, besides a valid Minister, a valid Form and Matter (words and actions at the heart of the ceremony) and the sacramental Intention to do what the Church does. All other words to be spoken at the ceremony constitute the Rite, surounding and framing the Form. Now from EC 121:—
According to the Cardinal, Freemasonry’s first objective at the Council was to break the Mass by so altering the Catholic Rite as to undermine in the long run the celebrant’s Catholic Intention: “to do what the Church does.” Gradually the Newrite was to induce priests and laity alike to take the Mass rather for a “memorial” or “sacred meal” than for a propitiatory sacrifice. Freemasonry’s second objective was to break the Apostolic Succession by a Newrite of Consecration that would eventually undermine the bishops’ power of Orders, both by a Newform not automatically invalidating but ambiguous enough to sow doubt, and above all by a Newrite which as a whole would eventually dissolve the consecrating bishop’s sacramental Intention. This would have the advantage of breaking the Apostolic Succession so gently that nobody would even notice ( . . . )
Do not today’s Newrites of Mass and Episcopal Consecration correspond exactly to the Masonic plan as unveiled by the Cardinal? Ever since these Newrites were introduced in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, many serious Catholics have refused to believe that they could be used validly. Alas, they are not automatically invalid. How much simpler it would be, if they were. They are worse. Their sacramental Newform is Catholic enough to persuade many a celebrant that they can be validly used, but the Newrite and Newform are designed as a whole to be so ambiguous and so suggestive of a non-Catholic interpretation as to invalidate the sacrament over time by corrupting the catholic Intention of any celebrant who is either too “obedient,” or is not watching and praying enough. Newrites thus valid enough to get themselves accepted by nearly all Catholics in the short term, but ambiguous enough to invalidate the sacraments in the long term, constitute a trap satanically subtle.
There is no room left in this week’s “Comments” to do justice to the recent article of Fr Alvaro Calderón, but let us present its grand lines (whose justification will have to wait for another issue of these “Comments”): the Newrite of episcopal Consecration is an entirely new Rite. As such, is it valid? It is certainly illegitimate, because no Pope has the right to make such a break with Catholic Tradition. On the other hand in the context of the Newrite and its institution, the Newmatter, Newform and Newintention are very probably valid, because they signify what needs to be signified and most of their elements come from Rites accepted by the Church. But the validity is not certain because the break with Tradition is not legitimate, and because the Newrite is only similar to Rites approved by the Church, and all the changes go in a modernist direction. Therefore the absolute need for certain validity in sacramental Rites applies: until the restored Magisterium of the Church pronounces that the Newrite of Consecration is valid, then to be safe, Newbishops should be reconsecrated conditionally, and Newpriests ordained only by Newbishops should be re-ordained conditionally.
Neo-modernism is “uniquely slippery.” It was designed to be so.
http://stmarcelinitiative.com/bishops-valid-ii/
Number CDL (450)
The Newchurch is ambiguous, through and through,
But innocent souls within it still we view.
A recent study by a competent Society of St Pius X theologian concerning the validity of the Newrite of Consecration of Newbishops introduced in 1969, provides remarkable confirmation of the second point of Freemasonry’s three-point plan to destroy the Catholic Church, which the dying Cardinal Liénart (1884–1973) allegedly revealed on his death-bed. The Cardinal was a leading neo-modernist at Vatican II, and surely a Freemason himself. Before quoting from the summary of the Cardinal’s testimony which appeared in these “Comments” (#121 of October 31, 2009), let us remind readers that the validity of a Catholic sacrament requires, besides a valid Minister, a valid Form and Matter (words and actions at the heart of the ceremony) and the sacramental Intention to do what the Church does. All other words to be spoken at the ceremony constitute the Rite, surounding and framing the Form. Now from EC 121:—
According to the Cardinal, Freemasonry’s first objective at the Council was to break the Mass by so altering the Catholic Rite as to undermine in the long run the celebrant’s Catholic Intention: “to do what the Church does.” Gradually the Newrite was to induce priests and laity alike to take the Mass rather for a “memorial” or “sacred meal” than for a propitiatory sacrifice. Freemasonry’s second objective was to break the Apostolic Succession by a Newrite of Consecration that would eventually undermine the bishops’ power of Orders, both by a Newform not automatically invalidating but ambiguous enough to sow doubt, and above all by a Newrite which as a whole would eventually dissolve the consecrating bishop’s sacramental Intention. This would have the advantage of breaking the Apostolic Succession so gently that nobody would even notice ( . . . )
Do not today’s Newrites of Mass and Episcopal Consecration correspond exactly to the Masonic plan as unveiled by the Cardinal? Ever since these Newrites were introduced in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, many serious Catholics have refused to believe that they could be used validly. Alas, they are not automatically invalid. How much simpler it would be, if they were. They are worse. Their sacramental Newform is Catholic enough to persuade many a celebrant that they can be validly used, but the Newrite and Newform are designed as a whole to be so ambiguous and so suggestive of a non-Catholic interpretation as to invalidate the sacrament over time by corrupting the catholic Intention of any celebrant who is either too “obedient,” or is not watching and praying enough. Newrites thus valid enough to get themselves accepted by nearly all Catholics in the short term, but ambiguous enough to invalidate the sacraments in the long term, constitute a trap satanically subtle.
There is no room left in this week’s “Comments” to do justice to the recent article of Fr Alvaro Calderón, but let us present its grand lines (whose justification will have to wait for another issue of these “Comments”): the Newrite of episcopal Consecration is an entirely new Rite. As such, is it valid? It is certainly illegitimate, because no Pope has the right to make such a break with Catholic Tradition. On the other hand in the context of the Newrite and its institution, the Newmatter, Newform and Newintention are very probably valid, because they signify what needs to be signified and most of their elements come from Rites accepted by the Church. But the validity is not certain because the break with Tradition is not legitimate, and because the Newrite is only similar to Rites approved by the Church, and all the changes go in a modernist direction. Therefore the absolute need for certain validity in sacramental Rites applies: until the restored Magisterium of the Church pronounces that the Newrite of Consecration is valid, then to be safe, Newbishops should be reconsecrated conditionally, and Newpriests ordained only by Newbishops should be re-ordained conditionally.
Neo-modernism is “uniquely slippery.” It was designed to be so.
http://stmarcelinitiative.com/bishops-valid-ii/
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/watchandpray/e/5c6c6af4556ba0c47ae9949476be72ce
それでも，ルフェーブル大司教（ "Archbishop Lefebvre" ）は可能な限り手を尽くし，
神の御慈悲により正気と秩序の島
（ "an island of sanity and order" ），
すなわち SSPX を創設されました
だが，当然のことながら，大司教の後継者たちは
歴代の公会議派教皇たちから圧力を受け
くじけてしまいました
「カトリック教徒でありながら教皇に従わないなど，
どうしてできましょうか？」
と，彼らは問います．
そんなことをすれば，無秩序，混乱を招くだけだというわけです
だが，ルフェーブル大司教は
公会議に対する抵抗を組織化することに成功したため，
彼のとった行動を理解する人たちの多くは
彼を裏切った者たちに対する抵抗を組織化したいと望んでいます
だが，この抵抗の組織化ははたして可能でしょうか？ この点がまさに問題です
私が知る賢明な同僚の一人は，
１９７０年代，１９８０年代に SSPX が全世界に拡大した当時，
ルフェーブル大司教のそばで懸命かつ効果的に運動に携わった充分に老練な会員ですが
彼は世界各地で公会議への抵抗をうまく推し進めた多数の司祭たちのことを振り返り，
彼らは互いに自立し大司教に頼ることなしに行動したと述懐しています
司祭たちが大司教に耳を傾けたのは彼がカトリック教の理にかなったことを話したからで，
それだからこそ彼らの多くは大司教の道徳的権威を認めたというのです
だが，司祭たちの誰も厳密な意味では大司教に服従しませんでしたし，
大司教も彼らに対し服従を求めませんでした
教皇なしには，
カトリック教会内の組織化された服従など不可能でしたし，
それは今でも変わっていません
私の同僚は続けて，大司教の SSPX は
３０年かおそらく４０年のあいだ自由主義教会および世界に抵抗したにすぎないが，
いまの状況は彼のいた当時よりむしろ悪くなっていると指摘しています
同僚は，本国が敵軍に占領されているときは
防衛軍を組織するのは不可能で，残された手段はゲリラ戦
だけだ，と結論づけています
私自身の意見では，同僚の次の言葉が混乱状況の増大ぶりを
正確に言い表しています：
「神の時と聖母マリアの汚れなきみ心の時の到来
（かつて聖母が仰せられた通り）は，
あらゆるものが失われたと思われる時までは決して果たされないでしょう，
失われるもののうち必ずやちっぽけな SSPX もそこに含まれるでしょう．」
フェレー司教の大きな錯覚は偉大な SSPX が教会を救うだろうと考えたことです
悪魔はこれに、
「トロイの木馬のように，（救えるとすれば）内部から」
と付け加えました
私たちが実際になすべきことは，創造主たる神がなされたように，
残された信心深い者たち（ "the faithful remnant" ）のために
ノアの箱舟を造ることです．
そして，洪水が来るまでそれを造り続けることです
勘違いした指導者は洪水が来ないうちに箱舟の扉を開けてしまい，
箱舟は水浸しになってしまいました
神は私たちすべてに御慈悲を賜ります．
その指導者（SSPXの指導者）はノアでなく，
タイタニック号の船長でした．」
それでも，ルフェーブル大司教（ "Archbishop Lefebvre" ）は可能な限り手を尽くし，
神の御慈悲により正気と秩序の島
（ "an island of sanity and order" ），
すなわち SSPX を創設されました
だが，当然のことながら，大司教の後継者たちは
歴代の公会議派教皇たちから圧力を受け
くじけてしまいました
「カトリック教徒でありながら教皇に従わないなど，
どうしてできましょうか？」
と，彼らは問います．
そんなことをすれば，無秩序，混乱を招くだけだというわけです
だが，ルフェーブル大司教は
公会議に対する抵抗を組織化することに成功したため，
彼のとった行動を理解する人たちの多くは
彼を裏切った者たちに対する抵抗を組織化したいと望んでいます
だが，この抵抗の組織化ははたして可能でしょうか？ この点がまさに問題です
私が知る賢明な同僚の一人は，
１９７０年代，１９８０年代に SSPX が全世界に拡大した当時，
ルフェーブル大司教のそばで懸命かつ効果的に運動に携わった充分に老練な会員ですが
彼は世界各地で公会議への抵抗をうまく推し進めた多数の司祭たちのことを振り返り，
彼らは互いに自立し大司教に頼ることなしに行動したと述懐しています
司祭たちが大司教に耳を傾けたのは彼がカトリック教の理にかなったことを話したからで，
それだからこそ彼らの多くは大司教の道徳的権威を認めたというのです
だが，司祭たちの誰も厳密な意味では大司教に服従しませんでしたし，
大司教も彼らに対し服従を求めませんでした
教皇なしには，
カトリック教会内の組織化された服従など不可能でしたし，
それは今でも変わっていません
私の同僚は続けて，大司教の SSPX は
３０年かおそらく４０年のあいだ自由主義教会および世界に抵抗したにすぎないが，
いまの状況は彼のいた当時よりむしろ悪くなっていると指摘しています
同僚は，本国が敵軍に占領されているときは
防衛軍を組織するのは不可能で，残された手段はゲリラ戦
だけだ，と結論づけています
私自身の意見では，同僚の次の言葉が混乱状況の増大ぶりを
正確に言い表しています：
「神の時と聖母マリアの汚れなきみ心の時の到来
（かつて聖母が仰せられた通り）は，
あらゆるものが失われたと思われる時までは決して果たされないでしょう，
失われるもののうち必ずやちっぽけな SSPX もそこに含まれるでしょう．」
フェレー司教の大きな錯覚は偉大な SSPX が教会を救うだろうと考えたことです
悪魔はこれに、
「トロイの木馬のように，（救えるとすれば）内部から」
と付け加えました
私たちが実際になすべきことは，創造主たる神がなされたように，
残された信心深い者たち（ "the faithful remnant" ）のために
ノアの箱舟を造ることです．
そして，洪水が来るまでそれを造り続けることです
勘違いした指導者は洪水が来ないうちに箱舟の扉を開けてしまい，
箱舟は水浸しになってしまいました
神は私たちすべてに御慈悲を賜ります．
その指導者（SSPXの指導者）はノアでなく，
タイタニック号の船長でした．」
実務合意を目指していたフェレー司教とそのアシスタントは、ようやく目を覚ましてくれたようです。ローマが伝統に回帰したという夢想は、やはりたんなる夢でしかなかったのです。ウィリアムソン司教がおっしゃったように、また追放されたジルアード神父やパイファー神父がおっしゃったように、ローマは何も変わっていないのです。新しい教えを広める第２バチカン公会議はスーパー異端であり、公会議教会は本物の教会ではない（SSPX創立者ルフェーヴル大司教の発言）のです。
多くの司祭とウィリアムソン司教を会から追放し、実務合意に向けて舵を切っていたSSPX幹部は、公会議教会は本物の教会ではないということ、第２バチカン公会議は輝かしい成功であったと主張したり、修道会から特別形式のミサを制限するように働く教皇から離れるべきであることを決断しました。
http://orapro-nobis.blogspot.jp/
多くの司祭とウィリアムソン司教を会から追放し、実務合意に向けて舵を切っていたSSPX幹部は、公会議教会は本物の教会ではないということ、第２バチカン公会議は輝かしい成功であったと主張したり、修道会から特別形式のミサを制限するように働く教皇から離れるべきであることを決断しました。
http://orapro-nobis.blogspot.jp/