|
|
|
A profound injustice
3-5-2013 |
LA PORTE
LATINE
We offer here
courtesy of the French District an extract from
Fr. Regis de
Cacqueray's March 2013
District
Superior's
Letter to Friends and Benefactors.
|

Fr. Regis de Cacqueray |
|
|
The treatment that the hierarchy of
the Catholic Church has been inflicting on the Priestly Society
of St. Pius X for almost forty years is born of a profound
injustice. We say this without the least bitterness, for we
remember well the eighth beatitude: "Blessed are those who
suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven."[1] But the supernatural blessings that we hope
to obtain from our situation must not keep us from ardently
hoping that those who have gone astray may return from their
errors. For the salvation of all wandering souls, we beseech
Heaven that the triumph of the truth may soon ring out, sounding
the death-knell of this injustice.
In the meantime, our dear Society
remains marginalized because it "refuses to follow the Rome
with neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies that appeared
at Vatican Council II and after the Council in all the reforms
that followed."[2] Even today, we are still accused of the
same crime; even today, all we would have to do is sign an
expression of our adherence to the Council’s doctrinal reform
and the liturgical reform of the Mass, and our reintegration
would be approved. Why persist in refusing to do so? Why did
Bishop Fellay not take the hand that Benedict XVI held out to
him in 2012? And now, the opportunity is gone, now that he is no
longer Pope!
Why did Bishop
Fellay not take the hand that Benedict XVI held out to him in
2012? |
|
Why? Because the Pope required the
Society to recognize that the New Mass and Vatican Council
II are permissible as an integral part of Tradition. We must
understand very profoundly the reasons that make it morally
impossible for us to accept such conditions. Accepting them
would submit us to the new religion that we have always
fought and it would gravely empoison our souls. Allow us to
repeat here why submitting ourselves to either of these two
conditions is inconceivable, so that we may all keep clearly
in mind the fundamental reasons for persevering on the
summit where the Society stands. |
 |
|
|
First of all, as far as the New Mass
is concerned, we share the very serious conclusion to which
Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci came even before the promulgation
of this New Mass: "It strays to an impressive degree, on the
whole as well as in its details, from the Catholic theology of
the holy Mass."[3] The Society remains in the wake of this
first show of protestation against the New Mass. It maintains[4]
in particular, that the new liturgy makes the propitiatory
nature of Our Lord Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross[5]
disappear, and that this voluntary amputation of the liturgy
betrays the spirit of His divine oblation. The deepest motive
for the Son of God’s coming down to earth to suffer His Passion
is erased from the New Mass. He became incarnate to deliver
Himself as a victim of expiation and He died on the Cross for
our sins, "to appease the Father and make Him favorable to us,"[6]
but the New Mass has suppressed this propitiatory object of the
Sacrifice, although this was the quintessence of the Catholic
spirit.
One must not therefore be surprised
when we say that the New Mass, even without the outrageous
demeanor to which it so often gives rise in the name of
liturgical creativity, and even when it is celebrated by a pious
priest, cannot be pleasing to God. Let us not react emotionally
to this statement that Archbishop Lefebvre repeated so often;
rather let us seek to understand why this objective conclusion
cannot be denied.
The new rite no longer expresses the
redeeming Sacrifice of our divine Savior as it really happened
on the cross, even though its authors pretend, on principle, to
have remained faithful on this point. Consequently, this new
rite gravely deceives souls who think they are assisting at a
Mass that has remained substantially unchanged, while in reality
they are faced with a liturgy that has been turned away from its
proper end. In name, the new liturgy is said to be Catholic; but
its contents are not. Satan’s masterstroke has managed to give
to a liturgy closer to the Protestant service of worship than to
the Catholic Mass the reputation of being Catholic.
Referred to today as the ordinary form
of the Roman Rite, this rite, not satisfied with no longer
conveying the Catholic religion, distills a purely human
religiosity that scarcely takes the time to mention that man is
first of all a poor sinner and that his duty is to fight
tirelessly against the three concupiscences in order to obtain
his salvation. Far from it, the texts of the New Mass celebrate
man and his work on earth. In vain does one look for the ancient
prayers, so frequent in the traditional Mass, that invited
Catholics to despise the things of earth and consecrate
themselves to those of heaven. The New Mass substitutes a
horizontal, profane vision for the vertical dimension of our
existence.
In reality, the Catholics who continue
to practice regularly for their whole lives with the New Mass
are rare. It is so desacralized that men who really seek God
cannot find Him in it. Many, disgusted, have deserted the
reformed sanctuaries because they no longer found there the
religion of their childhood. They could no longer bear this
exaltation of man in which the Son of God, who died on the Cross
to save them, is forgotten. They understood obscurely that this
Mass no longer spoke to them of the religion that they had been
taught. What was their sin? It is really a question we might ask
ourselves. What did they flee? A new religion that wished to
impose itself furtively upon their consciences without admitting
that it was new. Often these people, who stopped going to Sunday
Mass at the time, have kept the faith, while the others,
immersed Sunday after Sunday in the new rites, have, alas,
become disciples of the conciliar doctrine. New liturgy, new
religion!
We condemn the
equivocality of this New Mass |
|
We condemn the equivocality of
this New Mass. It no longer expresses Catholic dogma. It can
certainly be understood in a Catholic way by a Catholic, but
it can also be understood in a Protestant way by a
Protestant. How can this be? Through a subtle alchemy that
modifies the words, the gestures and many liturgical signs.
|
 |
|
|
Expressions that are too openly Catholic are almost
systematically watered down and replaced by others, vague enough
for the Protestants to be able to understand them in their own
way as well.
In this way, the symbols that express
the dogmas of the sacramental presence, of the renewal of the
sacrifice of the Cross, of the priesthood of the priest, have
been diminished in number and their precision has been reduced.
Henceforth, the purely spiritual presence of Christ among men,
the Last Supper, a meal during which the bread was broken and
shared, and the role of the assembly that celebrates with the
priest are emphasized. It is absolutely astounding, from a
historical point of view, to note that all the distortions
worked by the artisans of the New Mass are all but identical to
those that the Protestant reformers had invented to make the
Catholic Mass shift towards the Protestant service of worship.
The New Mass therefore cannot be
pleasing to God, since it is deceitful, harmful and equivocal:
It cannot be the object of a law
applicable as such to the whole Church. Indeed, the object of
liturgical law is to propose with authority the common good of
the Church and all that is required for it. As the New Mass of
Paul VI represents the deprivation of this good, it cannot be
the object of a law; it is not only evil, but also
illegitimate, in spite of all the appearances of legality with
which it has been and still is surrounded.[7]
We therefore refuse to consider
legitimate this evil liturgy that is opposed to the glory of God
and the salvation of souls. Instead we denounce the New Mass as
illegitimate and illicit. Those who are sanctified while
assisting at it are sanctified in spite of it and not through
it. One day, it will be forever banished from Catholic
sanctuaries.
This is why, in the footsteps of
Archbishop Lefebvre, we strongly recommend that our faithful
never actively assist at it, even if certain reasons allow them
to be present passively. Doubtless, one does not lose the faith
after assisting once, and so this is not the essential reason
for our opposition to the New Mass. The most profound reason for
which we encourage Catholics not to assist at the New Mass is
that such a cult can only displease God, and the faithful must
evidently never participate in a cult that displeases God, not
even to please those dear to them.
In the end, Vatican II caressed the
utopia of seeing the Church and the world join hands so that
humanity might advance upon new paths |
|
As for Vatican Council II, it
has now been recognized and abundantly proved, even in
circles far from the Society, that it was piloted by
innovating theologians whose goal was in no way to expose
the Faith. Many have admitted this, and bragged of it after
the Council. |
 |
|
|
What they tended
towards as much as possible during the four sessions of Vatican
II was an official reconciliation between the Church and the
modern world.
Under their strong influence, often inspired or
written by them, the conciliar declarations sought to hide the
truths that the modern spirit criticized the most, as if they
were ashamed of them and no longer believed in them.[8] On the
other hand, these same texts expressed their admiration for the
modern world by praising it. They adopted not only its language
and its intellectual patterns, but even its very ideas, those of
the French Revolution, of the declaration of human rights, and
of the modern philosophies. From then on, the official message
of the Church has been in collusion with the spirit of the
world.
In the end, Vatican II caressed the
utopia of seeing the Church and the world join hands so that
humanity might advance upon new paths. The old antagonism of all
the past centuries between the Church and the world was at an
end! Dialogue, elevated to the rank of a new virtue, would
henceforth make it possible to rise above misunderstandings, to
understand each other and to share each other’s wealth. Be it
the new meaning given to religious freedom and to ecumenism, or
the invention of inter-religious dialogue and the
democratization of the ecclesiastic structures, they are all so
many insidious and repeated deviations, deduced from liberal
philosophies and introduced into the conciliar texts. And these
perverse notions then acted themselves as so many metastases on
the other texts that had remained traditional. Our founder did
not hesitate to write:
It has only become more certain that
the Council was turned away from its proper end by a group of
conspirators and that it is impossible for us to enter into
this conspiracy, even if there are many satisfactory texts in
the Council. For the good texts only served to win the
acceptance of the equivocal texts, full of mines and traps.[9]
And he also wrote, "that, generally
speaking, when the Council innovated, it weakened the certitude
of the truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church
as belonging definitively to the treasure of Tradition."[10]
Indeed, the progressivist Cardinal Suenens was right when he
wrote with satisfaction, "Vatican II was 1789 in the Church." |
|
This comparison, only too true,
helps to understand why we are obliged to bring up the
Council over and over. If the French Revolution is the event
that completely overturned the institutions of our country,
and little by little, all the countries of the world,
Vatican Council II was an upheaval of similar amplitude in
the history of the Church. It is impossible to understand
the last fifty years of the history of the Church without
referring to the texts of the Council, which provide its
principles and direction. The implosion that took place
within the Church, then, cannot be ended so long as these
are conserved. The greatest disaster that has ever happened
in the history of the Church can only end on the day the
Council is rejected in order to return finally to the
Tradition of the Church. |
 |
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre also observed:
I accuse the Council seems to me to
be the necessary answer to Cardinal Ratzinger’s ‘I excuse the
Council.’ Let me explain: I maintain, and I am going to prove,
that the crisis of the Church essentially comes down to the
post-conciliar reforms that have come from the Church’s most
official authorities, applying the doctrine and directives of
Vatican II. There is therefore nothing marginal or underground
in the essential causes of the post-conciliar disaster.[11]
This common-sense reflection simply
tells us that the best interpretation of the Council is given to
us by the very facts that followed it. All the learned
contortions that certain hermeneutics of the conciliar texts go
to such pains to produce in order to save them from error are
neither very serious nor very useful. Their attempts to
exonerate the Council at all costs are immediately discredited
by a return to the cruel reality. Facts do not lie. The field of
ruins is all around us; we are walking through it as the last
walls finish falling. In the times to come, disrepute will weigh
ever more heavily upon those who persist in believing that the
soothing words they speak are enough to suppress the evils that
exist. They only do ill in acting thus, for they postpone the
time when they will finally accept to recognize courageously the
profound causes of the plagues that afflict the Church, in order
to allow her to live once again.
Be that as it may, the Society
strongly refuses to admit that Vatican Council II belongs to the
Tradition of the Church. We claim on the contrary, that in many
points this Council is diametrically opposed to it. That is why
our Superior General refused the conditions formulated by the
pope for our canonical reintegration. As soon as he learned of
them, Bishop Fellay made known to Rome the Society’s non
possumus. We express our gratitude to him for this
courageous refusal that he addressed to the pope. We believe,
besides, that Benedict XVI cannot have been so very astonished
by it, since our opposition to the New Mass and to the Council
has always been at the heart of the Society’s combat. We begin
our novena this evening, praying that the new pope may be a
traditional pope.
As for us, we continue as before
As for us, then, we continue as
before. We do not know the future. In France, it is clear that
things are deteriorating very quickly. Catholicism is more and
more of a minority, and more and more marginalized. The
Catholics can be counted: pretty soon everyone will know
everyone else! The conditions created for Catholics by a hostile
State are becoming brutal, scornful, mean. The precursory signs
of persecutions are perceptible. They come from a government
many of whose ministers are Freemason, under obedience to the
Grand Orient of France.
How will we react if even more
difficult circumstances were to arise in the future, and if a
manhunt for all the baptized were to be launched? We believe
that it is possible for a manhunt for Catholics to begin. It
would not be the first time in our country. There have been
others at times when the Church was much stronger than she is
today. Let us pray for one another, that we may remain faithful
to the Catholic Faith to the last instant of our existence. Let
us pray that, if God grants us the honor of asking the testimony
of our blood, we may obtain the grace not to refuse Him, but to
give it to Him with gratitude.
Above all, do not believe that a
spirit of compromise with the world would allow us to avoid this
confrontation. The history of all revolutions shows that
liberals are not saved by the concessions they make to the
revolution. They lose their honor first, but most of the time
they do not save their skin that was so dear to them. For the
revolution is thirsty and is never satisfied with the pledges
the liberals make to it. It wishes to see them grovel at its
feet. But when they find themselves in this position, it does
not resist the satisfaction of destroying the vanquished whom it
despises. We obviously do not wish this upon them, as we hope
that the perspectives we are evoking will not come about. But,
with all interior serenity, we prefer to evoke the possibility
of these things, not to frighten but in order that all may
devote themselves more intensely to prayer and to their duties.
Graces will certainly be given to us for tomorrow. There is
therefore no use in becoming dismayed today at the unknown
crosses the will be scattered throughout the years to come.
Let us not forget that only prayer,
ever more profound and more generous, from the deepest depths of
our soul, can ward off these perspectives, shorten the days of
misfortune and soften the divine chastisements. We urge you
especially, during this year 2013, to beseech St. Joseph, patron
of the Universal Church, to put an end to the crisis of the
Church. We still believe today that in France, if the bishops
were to become Catholic and courageous bishops, there would be a
great religious upsurge in our country, similar to the present
upsurge in Russia, unfortunately in the Orthodox religion. Let
the Faith be reborn and France will be reborn and regenerated.
To obtain these divinely fertile resources, our France need only
return to its baptismal fonts.
On March 9, at the sanctuary of
Cotignac, the district of France will be consecrated to St.
Joseph by Bishop Fellay |
|
On March 9, at the sanctuary
of Cotignac, the district of France will be consecrated to
St. Joseph by Bishop Fellay. Come all who can. Then, on
March 19, our whole Society will be consecrated to him. We
would especially like to invite you to multiply your
sacrifices and prayers in his honor. Offer every day
something of oneself in honor of St. Joseph; that is the
plan we offer you for the year 2013! He will shower you with
his blessings. Far from stealing anything from the honor of
Our Lord or of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we are, on the
contrary, certain that everything we do for him will fill
them with joy. |
 |
|
|
If the Child Jesus
found nothing better, on this earth, than to confide Himself to
this woman, blessed among all women, so that she might be His
mother, to this man, blessed among all men, so that he might be
His father, let us wager that we cannot find for ourselves
better protectors than these two holy Spouses, never separating
them in our devotions, and loving them passionately. Courage,
dear friends and benefactors: when the times are hard, God sends
down upon earth such graces that we might (almost!) come to
forget how hard these times are. |
|
|
Footnotes
1 Matt. 5:3
2
Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre, November
21, 1974.
3 Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in the
Brief Critical Study,
June 5, 1969.
4 Archbishop Lefebvre in
The Mass of All Time,
starting on page 257 [French edition].
5 Archbishop Lefebvre in The Mass
of All Time, p. 270 [French]:
They have removed from the new
ordo all the texts that clearly affirm the propitiatory
object, the essential object of the Sacrifice of the Mass. One
or two slight allusions can still be found, and that is all.
This was done because the propitiatory object is denied by the
Protestants. The prayers that explicitly expressed the idea of
propitiation, such as those of the Offertory and those
pronounced by the priest before the Communion have been
suppressed.
6 Catechism of the Council of Trent,
p. 247 Ed. DMM.
7 Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, Vatican
II en debat, p. 63.
8 In very diverse domains, take the
examples of the existence of hell, the condemnation of
Communism, the universal mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary...
9 Archbishop Lefebvre,
I Accuse the Council,
p. 10.
10 Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to
Cardinal Ottaviani, December 20, 1966.
11 Archbishop Lefebvre,
They Have Uncrowned Him,
pp. 233-234. |
|
|
| |
|