goo blog サービス終了のお知らせ 

カトリック情報

katorikku jyohou

伝統主義者になることとは教会権威とは距離をとりつつカトリック信仰を守ること 信仰保続を優先 どうせ信仰しか残らないんだから

2017-07-09 | 伝統派 十世会

MENZINGEN’S MISTAKE – I

Catholics who choose to keep away are right!

So let us look at the 20-page document put out on June 13 by the priests of SSPX HQ in Menzingen, Switzerland, to defend their having welcomed Conciliar Rome’s April 4 document which proposed more or less close participation by Conciliar churchmen in the celebration of SSPX marriages. Menzingen’s Letter to Clarify and Rectify Marriage Questions is well put together and quite persuasive if one does not notice the special pleading, but it suffers from the crippling defect of the Society’s present leaders in Menzingen, namely it mistakes Conciliar appearances for Catholic substance. In words the “Letter” condemns repeatedly Conciliar errors in general and on marriage in particular, but in action it treats the Conciliar churchmen as though they are normal Catholic churchmen, when in reality they are profoundly abnormal churchmen – they are modernists. In St Paul’s words for the last times, they have “an appearance of godliness, but deny the power thereof” (II Tim. III, 5). And he adds, “Now these avoid.”

.....

For tens of years since Vatican II, according as Catholics have realized what was happening to the Church and become “Traditionalists,” so they have put a distance between themselves and the Church’s official authorities. Without necessarily lacking in courtesy or respect, they have moved away in order to protect their Catholic Faith and morals. Now comes Menzingen moving towards these authorities and wanting all Traditionalists to follow! 

https://stmarcelinitiative.com/menzingens-mistake-i/


前長官ミューラー SSPXが教会と合意する条件は①ルフェーブル大司教を裏切り、②V2を受け入れ、③ノブスオルドを認めること

2017-07-04 | 伝統派 十世会

An English translation of an article by the French Medias-Catholique website reports upon a letter of Cardinal Muller to Bishop Fellay, in which the Cardinal once again clearly demands capitulation of the SSPX to the false principles and condemned doctrines of Vatican II as the price for canonical recohnition.

Specifically, the SSPX is required to:

  1. Accept the 1988 “Profession of Faith” which was rejected by Archbishop Lefebvre;
  2. Explicitly declare their acceptance and adhesion to the teachings of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium;
  3. Once again acknowledge the “legitimacy” of the new rite of Mass


フランスの信者700名が総長に反対署名 ルフェーブル大司教を裏切って死んでる教会(偽教会)と合意しようものなら大離脱が起きるという信徒からの通告

2017-06-28 | 伝統派 十世会

http://sodalitium-pianum.com/petition-of-700-families-delivered-to-menzingen-and-rome/

Your Excellency, Eminence,

You will find herewith the text of a petition from faithful followers of the heritage of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre and which has collected nearly 700 signatures. These faithful estimate that the new arrangements you have put in place regarding the administration of the sacrament of marriage to the betrothed attached to the Catholic tradition are not compatible with fidelity to a Catholicism free from the mistakes of Vatican II.

We have included the comments of the faithful on the occasion of the signing of this petition. These comments show the profound rejection by the faithful of the provisions in question and, more generally, their fundamental opposition to a canonical regularization of the Society of Saint Pius X which would not be preceded by the recognition and rejection by the Roman authorities of the errors of the Second Vatican Council. Any other procedure can only be interpreted as the betrayal of Bishop Lefebvre’s struggle.

We did not allow ourselves any correction to the reviews. Of course we do not subscribe to the (rare) invectives that they could contain.

Excellency, Eminence, may our Lord Jesus Christ enlighten you and give you the strength not to yield to the mirage of a practical agreement when the Church is dying of the dogmatic ambiguity resulting from the evil Vatican II.

Marcel Timafe


フランスのSSPXが反総長的公式宣言で応酬 丸ごと脱会か! 公会議を捨てぬ限り交渉せずの原則表明 その勇気を讃えよう やっぱこうでなくっちゃね 

2017-06-24 | 伝統派 十世会

My friends, unless I am missing something (and I very well may be), this looks an awful lot like a non serviam  declaration, or at the very least, a warning shot, directed, and rather boldly so, at Bishop Fellay himself – not just from Fr. Gleize, but from the leaders of the SSPX District of France who decided to publish the text on its official website!

https://akacatholic.com/breaking-did-sspx-france-issue-non-serviam-to-bishop-fellay/

What should our conclusion be? We would simply say that the “Society of Saint Pius X does not have to negotiate a charitable recognition which would save it from a supposed schism. It has the immense honor, after forty years of exclusion, to be able to witness in favor of the Catholic Faith in the Vatican [5]”  ...while we wait for Rome to finally decide to expel the perfidious Conciliar errors from the midst of the faithful [6].


メーソンに抗して信仰存続に必要なのは従順でモダニズムに併合される修道会ではなく、妥協なき司教の残存だけにしとくという戦略が一番いいことが今本当によくわかる

2017-06-20 | 伝統派 十世会

 One single thing is necessary for the continuation of the Catholic Church: fully Catholic bishops, who make no compromise with error, who found Catholic seminaries, where young candidates for the priesthood can nourish themselves with the milk of true doctrine

+++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

Prologue for Spiritual Journey

by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Very dear readers,

At the close of a long life (for I was born in 1905 and I now see the year 1990), I can say that it has been marked by exceptional world events: three world wars, that which took place from 1914 to 1918, that which took place from 1939 to 1945, and that of the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965.

The disasters caused by these three wars, and especially by the last of them, are incalculable in the domain of material ruins, but even more so in the spiritual realm. The first two paved the way for the war inside the Church, by facilitating the ruin of Christian institutions and the domination of Freemasonry, which has become so powerful that it has deeply infiltrated the governing body of the Church with its Liberal, Modernist doctrine.

By the grace of God, instructed as early as my seminary days in Rome of the mortal danger of these influences by the Rector of the French Seminary, the venerated Father Le Floch, and by the professors, Reverend Fathers Voetgli, Frey and Le Rohellec, I was able to verify, during my entire priestly life, how their calls to vigilance, based on the teachings of the Popes and, above all, of St. Pius X, were justified. I was able to verify at my own expense how this vigilance was justified, not only doctrinally, but also by the hatred which it provoked in the Liberal laity and clerics - a diabolical hatred.

The innumerable contacts, brought upon me by the duties conferred upon me, with the highest civil and ecclesiastical authorities in numerous countries, particularly in France and in Rome, have preciously confirmed for me that opinion was generally favorable to all those who were disposed to compromising with the Liberal, Masonic ideas, and unfavorable towards those determined to remain firm in traditional doctrine.

I believe I can say that few persons in the Church have been able to become as well informed as I have been able myself, not by my own will, but by the will of Providence. As a missionary in Gabon, contact with civil authorities was obviously more frequent than as Vicar at Le Marais-de-Lomme in the Diocese of Lille. This time of mission was marked by the Gaullist invasion; we were able to witness the victory of Freemasonry against the Catholic order of Petain. It was the invasion of the barbarians without faith or law!

Perhaps one day, my memoirs will give some details on these years from 1945 to 1960, and will illustrate this war inside the Church. Read the books of M. Marteaux on this period; they are revealing. The rupture between Liberalism and the doctrine of the Church was growing both in Rome, and outside Rome.

The Liberals were able to choose Popes like John XXIII and Paul VI, causing their doctrine to triumph in the Council, a marvelous means to obligate all of the Church to adopt their errors.

Having assisted at the dramatic contest between Cardinal Bea, representing Liberalism, and Cardinal Ottaviani, representing the doctrine of the Church, it was clear after the vote of the seventy cardinals that the rupture was consummated. One could think, without fooling oneself, that the support of the Pope would go to the Liberals. But henceforth this problem was in broad daylight! What would the bishops do, aware of the danger which threatened the Church? All could see the triumph, within the Church, of new ideas, born of the Revolution and the Lodges: 250 cardinals and bishops rejoiced at their victory, 250 were horror-stricken, 1,750 tried not to ask questions, but simply followed the Pope: “... we shall see to it later!”

The Council proceeds and the reforms multiply as quickly as possible. The persecution of traditional Cardinals and Bishops begins, and soon after of priests and religious everywhere who attempt to preserve Tradition. It is an open war against the Church’s past and Her institutions: “Aggiornamento, aggiornamento!"

The result of this Council is much worse than that of the Revolution; the executions and the martyrdoms are silent; tens of thousands of priests and religious abandon their vows; others leave the religious life; cloisters disappear; vandalism invades the churches; altars are destroyed; crosses disappear; the seminaries and novitiates are emptied.

The civil societies that are still Catholic become secular under pressure from Roman authorities: Our Lord should no longer reign here below!

Catholic teaching becomes ecumenical and liberal. Catechisms are changed and are no longer Catholic. The Gregorian University in Rome has become coeducational, with St. Thomas no longer the basis of the teaching.

In face of this universal and public state of affairs, what is the duty of bishops who are officially responsible for the institution which is the Church? What will they do? Many consider this institution to be untouchable, even if it no longer conforms to the end for which it was instituted! Those who occupy the seat of Peter and the bishops are responsible. They are the ones who said that the Church had to adapt to the times, that the excesses would pass, that it is easier to accept the Revolution in their diocese - lead it rather than resist it.

Among traditionalists, a good number, henceforward despised by Rome, handed in their resignations. Some, like Archbishop Morcillo of Madrid and Archbishop MacQuaid of Dublin, would die of sadness, as well as many good priests.

It is obvious that if many bishops had acted like Mgr. de Castro-Mayer, Bishop of Campos in Brazil, the ideological revolution within the Church could have been limited, because we must not be afraid to affirm that the current Roman authorities, since John XXIII and Paul VI, have made themselves active collaborators of international Jewish Freemasonry and of world socialism. John Paul II is above all a communist-loving politician at the service of a world communism retaining a hint of religion. He openly attacks all of the anti-communist governments and does not bring, by his travels, any Catholic revival.

These conciliar Roman authorities cannot but oppose savagely and violently any reaffirmation of the traditional Magisterium. The errors of the Council and its reforms remain the official standard consecrated by the Profession of Faith of Cardinal Ratzinger in March 1989.

No one denied that I was recognized as an official member of the episcopal corps. The Annuario Pontificio confirmed it until the moment of the episcopal consecration in 1988, presenting me as Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Tulle. It is under this title of Catholic Archbishop that I have rendered service to the Church, ravaged by its own, in founding a Society for the formation of true Catholic priests, the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, duly approved by Mgr. Charrière, Bishop of Fribourg, Switzerland, and endowed with a letter of commendation by Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy.

I could rightly think that this Society - which wanted to be attached to all the traditions of the Church: doctrinal, disciplinary, liturgical, etc. - would not remain for very long approved by the liberal destroyers of the Church.

But the mystery is that there were not fifty or a hundred bishops to act as Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself did, as true successors of the Apostles against impostors! It is not pride and self-importance to say that God in His merciful wisdom saved the heritage of His priesthood, of His grace, of His revelation, through these two bishops. It is not we who chose ourselves, but God has guided us in the upholding of all the riches of His Incarnation and of His Redemption. Those who feel they must minimize these riches and deny them can only condemn us. This can only confirm their schism with Our Lord and His Kingdom, by means of their secularism and their apostate ecumenism.

I can hear them say: “You exaggerate! There are many good bishops who pray, who have the Faith, who are edifying...” Were they saints, as soon as they accept the false religious liberty, hence the secular State; false ecumenism, and hence the admission of many ways of salvation; of liturgical reform, and hence of the practical negation of the Sacrifice of the Mass; of the new catechisms with all their errors and heresies, they officially contribute to the revolution within the Church and to its destruction!

The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity, through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.

One single thing is necessary for the continuation of the Catholic Church: fully Catholic bishops, who make no compromise with error, who found Catholic seminaries, where young candidates for the priesthood can nourish themselves with the milk of true doctrine, placing Our Lord Jesus Christ at the center of their intellects, of their wills, of their hearts; who have a living faith, profound charity, a devotion without bounds, uniting them to Our Lord. They will ask, as did St. Paul, that we pray for them, that they advance in understanding and wisdom of the Mysterium Christi, of the mystery of Christ, where they will discover all of the divine treasures.

Let them prepare themselves to preach Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Crucified... “importune, opportune,” - in season, out of season... (II Tim 4:2).

Let us be Christians! That even all of the human, rational sciences may be enlightened by the light of Christ, Who is the Light of the World and Who gives to each man his intelligence when he comes into the world.

The evil of the Council is the ignorance of Jesus Christ and of His Kingdom. It is the evil of the bad angels, the evil which is the way to Hell.

It is because St. Thomas had an exceptional knowledge of the Mystery of Christ that the Church chose him as Her Doctor. Let us love to read and re-read the papal encyclicals on St. Thomas and the necessity of following him in the formation of priests, in order to not hesitate an instant in proclaiming the richness of his writings and, above all, of his Summa Theologica, to communicate to us an unchanging faith and the surest means to arrive in prayer and contemplation, at the celestial shores which will then no longer abandon our souls inflamed by the spirit of Jesus, regardless of the ups and downs of this earthly life.

 

Marcel Lefebvre

January 29, 1990

 

 

 


デラロック神父がパリからダバオに左遷 楯つく奴は容赦なし

2017-06-17 | 伝統派 十世会

http://sodalitium-pianum.com/retaliation-against-the-seven-deans-continues-fr-de-la-rocque/

Remnant Editor’s Note: Father Patrick de la Rocque, SSPX, is the Parish Priest of the Society of St. Pius X’s largest church in Paris, the famous Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet. He was also one of the four theologians on the SSPX side during the doctrinal discussions under Pope Benedict. As part of our ongoing discussion of both the pros and the cons of a possible SSPX regularization, Father de la Rocque raises an interesting argument in favor of exercising extreme caution. This article appeared in the March 2017 edition of Le Chardonnet, the parish bulletin of Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet, Paris, and was posted on the SPPX French District website La Porte Latine

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3103-eh-francis-a-further-consideration-on-the-question-of-sspx-regularization


f1とSSPXが神学的に一致できるという理屈を一生懸命考えているようだ

2017-06-13 | 伝統派 十世会

In principle, then, it must be possible to collaborate in some way with a Modernist Pope. Let us just zoom out a bit from the SSPX-Rome talks, so as to understand a fact that is absolutely fundamental for this discussion: the SSPX has always collaborated to some degree with the post-Conciliar Popes. Three principles will help clarify that such is specifically the case with Pope Francis.

http://fsspx.asia/en/news-events/news/unity-faith-pope-francis-canonical-recognition-sspx-30306

From the very beginning, Fr. Robinson offers inconsistent ideas. He insinuates that Francis does have the same faith of the SSPX but then goes on to speak of Jorge Bergoglio as a “Modernist Pope”. That a Modernist, by definition, is not a Catholic but a heretic/apostate, does not seem to occur to or bother the author. We would like to encourage our readers to substitute the word “Lutheran” or “Mormon” for “Modernist” and see how much sense Fr. Robinson makes then.

http://novusordowatch.org/2017/06/sspx-francis-theological-absurdistan/

 

新しいぶどう酒(ノブスオルド)を古い革袋(伝統)に入れたらやぶれるのは革袋(伝統)の方 混合や統合や多元は結局信仰破壊 別にしとくしかないってば

2017-06-06 | 伝統派 十世会

新しいぶどう酒を古い革袋に入れる者はいない。そんなことをすれば、革袋は破れ、ぶどう酒は流れ出て、革袋もだめになる。
新しいぶどう酒は、新しい革袋に入れるものだ。そうすれば、両方とも長もちする。
マタイによる福音書 第9章17節 

Il ne faut pas confondre deux choses : 

* le rite du sacrement (qui est prévu selon l’ancien rite) 

* et la forme extraordinaire, c’est-à-dire le fait de célébrer le mariage sans la juridiction ordinaire (ou juridiction donnée par l’Ordinaire), mais avec deux témoins + éventuellement un prêtre, ce que la FSPX fait depuis 40 ans et plus.

Le fait que le prêtre du diocèse vienne célébrer avec le rite ancien (« le rite du sacrement ») et qu’ensuite il laisse le prêtre de la FSPX célébrer la messe traditionnelle sont des appâts pour faire avaler l’hameçon : c’est qu’en acceptant la juridiction de l’Ordinaire, la FSPX est prise dans un piège :

1.- Elle s’oblige à respecter le nouveau code, puisque l’Ordinaire donne cette juridiction selon ce code. En cas de problème, tous les mariages seront jugés selon le nouveau code et selon les normes romaines actuelles, donc très facilement dissous en deux mois.

2.- Elle reconnaît par le fait même que les mariages qui continueraient à être faits par des prêtres de la FSPX qui ne voudrait pas recevoir cette juridiction de l’Ordinaire serait par le fait invalide, parce qu’ils prétendent utiliser la forme extraordinaire qui n’a plus lieu d’être utilisée.

Le piège romain est habile.

 

Let us not get mixed up with two different things:

* the rite of the sacrament (according to the old rite)

* and the extraordinary form according to Canon Law, i.e. the fact that the marriage is performed without the ordinary jurisdiction (= the jurisdiction given by the Ordinary / local bishop), but with two witnesses + possibly a priest, which is what the SSPX has been doing for over 40 years.

The fact that the diocesan priest comes to perform the old rite (« the rite of the sacrament ») and then allows the SSPX priest to say the traditional Mass are baits in order to let people swallow the hook: if it accepts the Ordinary's jurisdiction, the SSPX is trapped:

1.- The SSPX thus pledges to go by the new code, since the Ordinary gives jurisdiction according to the new code. In the case of a problem, all these marriages would be judged according to the new code and current norms, and easily be dissolved within a couple of months.

2.- The SSPX also recognises the fact that those marriages which would be performed by their own priests without the Ordinary's jurisdiction would be invalid, because they use the extraordinary form without having a good reason any longer. 

An ingenious trap.


Denis Puga神父(SSPX米国管区)の解任された7人のフランス地区長を支援する書簡 流されずに立ち上がるSSPXのDNA フランス語できる人訳してくんさい 

2017-06-06 | 伝統派 十世会

P. DENIS PUGA: LETTER OF SUPPORT TO THE 7 DEANS

P. DENIS PUGA: LETTER OF SUPPORT TO THE 7 DEANS
 
LETTER OF Fr. DENIS PUGA 

To the PPs David Aldalur, Xavier Beauvais, François-Xavier Camper, Bruno France, Thierry Gaudray, Patrick de La Rocque, Thierry Legrand
 
Very dear brothers and deans:
 
With attention I have read your "Letter of the Deans" made public the past 7 May. As a priest of the district, I would like to thank you sincerely for this statement so clear and so strong that it will have the effect, I am sure, to reassure our faithful as to the certainty of finding among the priests of our dear Fraternity Saint Pius X the necessary help To contract and celebrate their marriage in the spirit of combat carried out by Monsignor Lefebvre, that is, in a spirit of unshakable fidelity to the teaching of the Church.
 
The decision of Pope Francis, made public by the Ecclesia Dei Commission last April, and already widely commented on in the media, has caused great concern among the faithful; They fear that we will ask them from now on to submit themselves necessary and solely to the decision of the local bishops to be able to validly and lawfully exchange a marriage consent according to the traditional rite.
 
The true, precise, faith-filled and canonically well supported argumentation of your letter will reassure and calm you. I have already received testimony. It is as true shepherds, concerned for the good and protection of the souls that God has entrusted to them, that you acted. In the present situation, speaking loudly, loudly and directly has become more necessary than ever; You did, and thank you very much for that.
 
I particularly appreciate the conclusion of your letter, in which you emphasize that the first step towards the granting of a possible personal prelature that should preserve us as we are, paradoxically consists in a willingness to submit the marriages of our faithful to Ordinaries who do not have Nothing to object to the harmful teachings and the disastrous decisions of Pope Francis on the sanctity of marriage.
 
I can assure you that many confreres in the district, with whom I have had an opportunity to meet, share this feeling of gratitude. As one of them told me: "it is a beautiful text, clear and comforting by that vigor that we thought we would never hear again."
 
May the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to which Monsignor Lefebvre consecrated the Priestly Fraternity Saint Pius X, be our help. May Our Lord keep and protect you.
 
Father Denis PUGA  
 

Thierry Gaudray神父(元フランス SSPX地区長)によるフランス管区長の非難書簡に答える形での信徒への書簡 

2017-06-06 | 伝統派 十世会

Letter to the Faithful

[In Response to Fr. Christian Bouchacourt’s May 7 Letter of Condemnation] by
Fr. Thierry Gaudray
[One of the 7 Signatory Deans of the SSPX French District]
May 26, 2017
Note: That which follows is an improved Google Translation

The deans’ letter about marriages in Tradition surprised you. Being in the impossibility of replying to all the mail that I received as a result of his reading, I choose to write a common text. Many expressed their gratitude. Others, I know, do not believe they can approve the method used. Others may not agree with the very content of the deans’ letter.

Agitation is a bad counselor. It is in prayer and in the concern to work for the salvation of souls and first of all his own that the defense of the faith must be considered, and it is in this spirit that I write. It is in peace that can be overcome the desires, the fears, and the hopes that too easily obscure the judgment. On the other hand, it is not a question of taking refuge in silence precisely while souls are lost. The Church is infiltrated by enemies who do not sleep and have succeeded in apostatizing millions of baptized people. Silence can and must be kept under certain circumstances. But when you are driven back, when you have to do something that is not honest, then the refusal must be clear. That certain priests do not at once consider the consequences of the acts to be imposed upon them, does not change the nature of things. Time will do its work of decanting for all souls of good will.

We were reproached for taking the faithful as hostages by submitting a problem that they were not able to solve. I reject this accusation primarily because marriage is a public thing. Its celebration regards the spouses who are ministers of the sacrament, as well as all the faithful. Of course, the deans’ letter requires some reflection and some have misunderstood it. But with such arguments, as to renounce the least course of catechism. Should we refuse to condemn the mistakes of the Council because they are often difficult to understand?

I will go further and I will return the accusation: It is the priests who were taken hostage and that is why they could not keep silent. No sooner had Rome published her text, than the whole

Fraternity was obliged to render “profound and public thanks” to the Holy Father. In an “authorized comment” published by the General House on the internet, it was immediately announced which direction the priests of the Fraternity would take. The DICI magazine makes it a chorus to announce that priests were going to enter the framework imposed by Rome and the superiors of the Fraternity. Should it be enough to obey without flinching? Do priests need to change the way they minister without thinking? Beyond the question of law, I will again try to expose the problem of conscience that arises.

Today, the main assault of the underworld against poor humanity is on marriage. No one can ignore this attack because the family is the basic cell of society. All have the duty to defend marital union in its nature, its end and its properties. Moreover, the baptized who confess the sacramental character of Christian marriage must protect the profession of faith which is implied by all matrimonial consent. The future spouses who will be the ministers of this sacrament (a priest does not “marry”) have no right to celebrate it in an equivocal manner. The priests have the duty to remind them and help them to protect themselves from the hustle and bustle of the modernist clergy.

On April 4, 2017, Cardinal Müller expressed the authorization granted by the Holy Father to the bishops of the whole world to delegate a diocesan priest to bless the marriage of the faithful of the Fraternity, or, in case of impossibility, to concede to the priests of the Fraternity the necessary faculties. It was then announced that this decision of the Holy Father would change our current practice. As you know, it consists in urging the faithful to take advantage of the provisions of Canon 1098. This latter makes it possible to marry without recourse to the conciliar clergy because of the serious damage to the faith that this entails. From now on, he would have to turn to the bishops and act according to their answers. Some priests offer minimal co-operation to this new practice by simply informing the bishops (without speaking to the faithful ...) of what they think to do in the line or in the context of Cardinal Müller’s letter.

This is where a real problem of conscience arises. Is it permissible to align or enter into this framework? It is enough to envisage the different possible answers answers that one will have provoked to realize the immense difficulty.

The possibility of bringing a modernist priest to a wedding ceremony is obviously unthinkable. I do not think I need to dwell on this.

Now if the bishop wants to send a priest from his diocese (or come himself), how can he reproach him for doing exactly what the pope invites him to do? How can one deeply thank the pope for his decision, write to the bishop as part of this decision, and then refuse the bishop’s positive answer? How can we rent a decision and see a “serious inconvenience” when it is applied? It is also impossible to resort to false arguments, for example to say that it is the couple who refuses the presence of a conciliar priest, or that it is the perplexity that this engendered among our faithful which would oblige us to refuse the proposal of the bishop. The pastor must precede the sheep. The priests of the Fraternity do not take shelter behind the perplexity of the faithful, but they illuminate it.

If the bishop refuses any delegation, how can we say then that recourse to canon 1098 would be strengthened when the serious inconvenience would be reduced to a personal question? It is no longer the future spouses who refuse to have recourse to an authority dangerous to the faith, but it is a bishop who refuses to such a priest in a certain place at a given moment a

delegation that he believed himself obliged to request. The logic of this approach does not even allow us to see an injustice that was never the fundamental problem.

Finally, if the bishop gives the delegation without any condition but always within the framework of Cardinal Müller’s letter, how can it be proclaimed joyously without provoking “debates of conscience among the faithful who adhere to the Fraternity” the other marriages that have been or will be celebrated in our chapels? By entering into the pontifical dispositions, it would be admitted that two kinds of marriage should be celebrated among us, and that an unjust hierarchy should be established between them. Instead of honoring the courageous faithful who have recourse to the ministry of the priests of Tradition, we will look at them with compassion because they have not had the good fortune to find an obliging bishop or with hostility because they did not want to enter into explicitly established provisions to achieve an illusory “full communion”.

Finally, is this conciliar stamp which is supposed to “secure” the marriages of our faithful not an invitation to turn to the diocesan officials which pronounce by thousands of true “Catholic divorces” in the name of the code of 1983, revised in a way even more lax by Francois? The poor spouses who are ready to put their faith in danger, to violate their matrimonial commitments and to commit adultery will unfortunately still find a priest to bless them, even in the traditional rite. Is it then right to weaken the convictions of all the faithful in order to lessen the betrayal of some?

The announcement of a directory, which was supposed to establish a discipline for the celebration of marriages in the Fraternity, required a reaction from the priests, since the good of the faithful was directly at stake. The nature of the “official communique” clearly indicates the line of the board of directors announced. The question is public by its nature and by the will of the superiors of the Fraternity. The accused deans preferred to express their opposition before the announced orders were actually answered.

Some confreres are determined not to take account of this directory. It is true that the letter to the deans itself shows that the use of canon 1098 is in no way under the authority of superiors. Neither the diocesan bishops nor the superiors of the Fraternity can arrogate to themselves the right to govern the right of the faithful to marry without “serious inconvenience”. That said, the priest exercises his priesthood in a society of which he assumes official positions. Personally I do not see how a priest could adopt this attitude without attracting all the same reproaches as the priests who depend on the shameful commission Ecclesia Dei.

The deans were reproached for wanting to defeat the efforts of the Generalate to obtain a personal prelature from Rome. Is that their intention? The letter itself of the deans evokes this apprehension. So there is no mystery. Such convoluted procedures for the simple celebration of marriages augured for insuperable difficulties for the exercise of priestly ministry in the full profession of the Catholic faith. However, the above objections retain their value outside of this context and call for answers. 


性犯罪と内部分裂の十世会の帰一にF1が待った ローマは本気じゃないんじゃない 気をもたせて操るおあずけ作戦じゃないの 

2017-06-06 | 伝統派 十世会

Francis-Bergoglio Says Fellay's Neo-SSPX Can Wait
Neo-SSPX Is Now Being Investigated for Sex Crimes and Beset with Schism

From: The TRADITIO Fathers

The Congregation of the Neo-SSPX's "Headquarters" outside Paris
St. Nicholas du Chardonnet, Rioted
When Fellay Fired Its Prior, as Well as Other French Priors and Superiors
Because They Rejected Fellay's Acceptance
Of the New Order Sect's Jurisdiction over the Neo-SSPX
The Neo-SSPX "Headquarters" Church Has Thousands of Congregants
There Are Also Charges that the Neo-SSPX Has Covered Up
Paedophile Priest-Presbyters within Its Sect
Now Fellay and His Sect Are "Damaged Goods"
And Francis-Bergoglio Says that No Sellout Can Be Contemplated Now

On the plane back from Francis-Bergoglio's fake "con-anizations" at Fatima, Portugal, Francis-Bergoglio stated on May 13, 2017, that he was far from accepting Fellay and his Neo-SSPX into the Newchurch of the New Order. He was asked by a French correspondent whether Bernie Fellay and his sect would be accepted "in the short term." Bergoglio answered sharply that he completely rejected any form of "triumphalism," but indicated that Newchurch is in the process of taking control of Fellay's group and now has control of its ordinations, confessions, and marriages.

Francis-Bergoglio also pointed to the cases charging the Neo-SSPX with the cover-up of sex crimes against children by its priest-presbyters, now in the hands of Newchurch's Congregation for the Doctrine of the [New Order] Faith, which is considering the reduction of Neo-SSPX priest-presbyters to the lay state. Fellay has accepted the jurisdiction of this Novus Ordo body. Said, Bergoglio: "I don't want to rush things." On March 1, 2017, Bernie Fellay even admitted with embarrassment to his priest-presbyters that his Neo-SSPX sect's sellout to the New Order sect "had not progressed as far as some rumors would have us believe" and that there was "no imminent agreement."

On April 10, 2017, Fellay further admitted that in an audience on April 1, 2016, Francis-Bergoglio had told him: "You have problems, and therefore we must not rush. We must not create more divisions, and therefore we are taking our time." This statement apparently referred to the growing schism within the Neo-SSPX. In 2012 its senior bishop, Richard Williamson, abandoned the sect. In 2015 some 100 priest-presbyters and 12 traditional monasteries and convents also abandoned Fellay. These schisms have significantly grown in the ensuing year. [Some information for this Commentary was contributed by the French daily La Croix.]

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1706.htm#170605


「モダニストローマなんかとはどんな形の合意もまっぴら御免」というスタンスは今や昔で寂しい限り

2017-06-03 | 伝統派 十世会

MONS. MARCEL LEFEBVRE: ABSOLUTELY AGAINST ANY TYPE OF AGREEMENT WITH MODERNIST ROME

"Betting on an agreement with the pope is an illusion. The pope will grant us on the disciplinary and liturgical level everything we want, but on the condition of admitting his modernist ideas on religious freedom and ecumenism, ie our Catholic faith. No hope is to be seen from that side.Rome is occupied by modernism and liberalism! "
 
"Whatever the canonical privileges they may give, their acceptance means for them communion with the Holy See, with the Pope and with the Council, therefore an implicit acceptance of all that modernism that we fought following St. Pius X and all The popes before the Council. They want to neutralize the Tradition, that it will no longer be an obstacle for their ecumenical enterprises and for the Revolution in the Church "
 
"Do not have a point of contact with the one who is in charge of destroying the Tradition."
 

フランス管区長への地区長らの公開書簡メモ

2017-05-30 | 伝統派 十世会

The seven Neo-SSPX French Priors and three Superiors of Congregations who publicly broke with Bernie Fellay, the NSSPX Superior-Dictator, over Fellay's acceptance of Newchurch control over NSSPX marriages, have issued an Open Letter explaining their break. The letter contains these points against traditional Catholics having anything to do with Francis-Bergoglio's Newchurch of the New Order:

  1. The heretical Neo-modernism of the Vatican II Anti-council is poisonous for the Faith and highly infectious, having infected essentially the entire Newchurch since the 1960s.
  2. True (traditional) Catholics must stay away from the Novus Ordo sect and its clergy as a whole. For instance, in his April 8, 2016, document Amoris laetitia (The Joy of Sex), Francis-Bergoglio issued heretical statements about marriage.
  3. Fellay has accepted Bergoglio's decree that in future Neo-SSPX marriages are to be witnessed by a Novus Ordo presbyter appointed or delegated for that purpose by the local Novus Ordo bishop, without whose participation Neo-SSPX marriages will continue to be judged invalid by the Newchurch "authorities."
  4. Newchurch marriage tribunals are rejected because they grant phony (invalid) "Catholic divorces" and contravene the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony.

http://www.traditio.com/comment/com1706.htm#170601