Thank you to Michael Matt at Remnant TV:
Thank you to Michael Matt at Remnant TV:
“Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”
– C. S. Lewis
Taken from Dawn Marie’s Post on, “Crusaders of the Immaculate Heart“:
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
To listen to your many questions in recent days, I have to go back on an event that took place this week and which left many – rightly – somewhat perplexed. On 1 September, the Pope, the same day that he received the infamous Gaillot, bishop deposed by John Paul II, the same day the Pope wrote and published a letter addressed to Bishop Fisichella, in charge of the next Jubilee of Mercy . In that letter, it enacts some application principles of this jubilee, first for all the Catholic faithful, and in special cases: the sick, the elderly, prisoners … and members of the Priestly Fraternity St. Pius X.
Paradox of this Pope who, by the same token, we recognize openly and publicly as Catholics. It’s fifty years is known, but here it publicly acknowledges. What he said about us?
“I established, he said, by my own disposition, those who during the Holy Year of Mercy, come near to celebrate the sacrament of reconciliation – you understand the confession, the sacrament of penance – j ‘established so that those who approach the priests of the Society of St. Pius X will receive valid and lawful absolution of their sins. “
What is the scope, the rationale of this provision?
The first thing that is clear is that in this letter, the Pope invites us, wants to involve us in this Jubilee of Mercy. It is important first of all to wonder about that. What this jubilee? Should we, can we participate or not?
A jubilee, you know – the term is common – an anniversary is being celebrated in joy, in jubilation. You celebrate the silver jubilee or gold of your wedding, we of our priesthood. Joyful event in which we give thanks to God for his blessings. In the Church, jubilees are mostly anniversary of the Redemption of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
For example, in 2000, in his Bull of Indiction – is the papal act by which the Pope decreed a jubilee – Pope John Paul II opened the Jubilee precisely to celebrate the great mystery, gorgeous, the redemptive Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He said it was the first words of his Bull of Indiction: “The eyes fixed on the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God, the Church prepares to cross the threshold of the third millennium.”
Eyes fixed on the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God … We were facing a jubilee quite traditional, classic as to its nature, which is why we participated happily there, taking us to largely away from all the dramatic events that took place on the occasion of this jubilee. Whether ecumenical or interfaith, unfortunately they have multiplied. But the Jubilee itself, this jubilee one was quite catholic, traditional; and acts Catholics, traditional, we have participated. Making a double profession of faith, first of all by this pilgrimage to Rome and then taking the defense of the faith, and to this end Bishop Fellay asked us to prepare a comprehensive study on the problem so serious of the liturgical reform. (1)
What about the Jubilee today? What just celebrate? This requires looking at the Bull of Indiction of Pope Francis in which he enacts jubilee. This is where are described the purpose and intent of the jubilee. Now this text is extremely clear. This is to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Vatican II.
The Church, the Pope said, feels the need to keep alive this event. And that is why, he says, I will open the Holy Door for the fiftieth anniversary of the conclusion of the ecumenical council Vatican II.
Vatican II was completed December 8, 1965, and it is therefore on that date, for the 50th anniversary of this event, which will open this jubilee.
Can we rejoice, rejoice, this event was the Second Vatican Council? It is clear, unfortunately, not.
This council itself all causes of decay, the decay, the Church has known for 50 years; whether at the doctrinal level, at the pastoral level. One such very present today, this huge weakness of the Church to the false religions. If Islam is today present in our country, so strong and so vivid, it’s primarily because of the Church who hid who was ashamed of his message about Jesus Christ, only Saviour; Church outside of which there is no salvation. We experience all the practical consequences of these erroneous principles, set by the council. This is just one example among many others.
So it is obvious that we can not rejoice in this event the council. These fifty years, for us and for those looking to have an objective view of lucidity, doctrinal and pastoral, these fifty years may not be the opportunity of penance, not of joy.
Returning to the text on Tuesday to see the issues, what it hides behind itself. There is undoubtedly a lot of skill on the part of Pope Francis. For years, decades, they try to make us recognize the Second Vatican Council and its new erroneous principles. They sought to send them to recognize in principle, trying to make us sign alleged doctrinal statements.
Being in Rome in these doctrinal discussions from 2009 to 2011, I can tell you it has seen in the texts of doctrinal statements that they wanted us to sign. And they failed. So rather than make us recognize in principle all these new teachings, they seek to act by praxis, to make us take actions which, in themselves, by their nature, involve implicit recognition of that.
They want us to take part in the jubilee celebrating 50 years of Vatican II.
We are there – I do not judge intentions, I only take a few history lessons – we’re here face a truly revolutionary tactics, well-known Marxists. When the revolution can achieve the principles of the man he considered his enemy, he tries to make him take concrete acts by which it puts parentheses principles.
For example, read the book of Mrs. Hue, “In China’s prisons.” She tells how, being hungry, we denied him any food until Friday when we came to bring him meat, that it renounces its principles of Catholic life. In pure theory, she could eat; she was starving, there was a serious circumstance … But she understood very well that we wanted to prejudice his Catholic principles. And she refused. It was she who was right.
We still reports how, still in the Communist China to nullify a deeply Catholic parish, Communist troops sought to compel the faithful to just get out of their church benches to burn. It was not an act directly sacrilege. It was not undermining the Blessed Sacrament. These Catholics, with their lively faith, of course, refused. They were right.
I believe that for us today, is exactly, although at a different scale, the same situations in which we are. Keep this strength in faith, this quiet strength, this gentle but firm force is precisely to keep our principles, simply Catholic principles, which reject the error. Keep these principles and live according to these principles. Do not live according to the principles to which we remain attached internally is simply called liberalism.
So maybe some people would say to me: but still we gain since through this, the Pope recognizes the validity, legality of our faiths. I would answer you: the better, the better for the timorous souls, good for the souls that are not of this parish. But for you, it, it is obvious that you have no doubt that recognition brings nothing.
You know: that the priest can forgive, it must have jurisdiction. But in the Church, there are three kinds of courts. There are so-called ordinary jurisdiction. The Pope has ordinary jurisdiction over the universal Church; the bishop has ordinary jurisdiction over his diocese: first type of jurisdiction, the ordinary jurisdiction. Second type of jurisdiction is delegated jurisdiction. The bishop can not assume all the confessions of his diocese, delegates part of its jurisdiction to the pastor, priest which will delegate to his assistants again. Second type of jurisdiction, delegated jurisdiction; always given by the Church, through intermediaries, in a human chain.
There is yet a third type of jurisdiction, always given by the Church – comes necessarily any jurisdiction of the Church, the Pope is necessarily the law of the Church. Well precisely, in canon law, the law of the Church, there is this third type of jurisdiction, called augmentative and by which the Church, the Pope, therefore, automatically gives its jurisdiction to priests, at any Priest in some cases, in case that the called necessary. These case of necessity, it is quite simple, they are managed by the great principle of canon law, the first law of the Church is the salvation of souls. And when the salvation of souls is threatened, the Church through its law automatically gives gives jurisdiction to any priest to exercise his ministry well with those souls; Locum jurisdiction. Note to avoid some misunderstandings: some say that supplied jurisdiction is given to priests by the faithful. It is radically wrong. The faithful have no jurisdiction. The court is always given by the Church. And the Church, the Pope gives the direct jurisdiction to priests, regardless of the human chain, in order to perform the acts necessary for salvation.
That there when needed today is unfortunately more than obvious. Would that confession in this field to take only one. There is not a week in office without guard that we have people external to this parish, who come to us for confession, so they come out of the confessional of a Parisian parish. Outraged by what they were told by the concept of sin completely distorted the supposed priest had confessed. So they came here to get a true absolution. And this is not the fact of a particular priest. This is unfortunately a fact that is in the whole Church.
One need only look at the synod on the family. When it is the question of recognition in the Church of homosexual unions, when it is: “Someone who sins against nature remains in a state of grace, he can commune”, when is to say, “Someone who has denied the loyalty oath before God on the day of her marriage can commune”, there is, at the highest level of the Church, a severe case of necessity. And that is why, for years, decades, all the absolutions, all the sacraments, weddings, absolutions, you receive this parish, you know, and are valid and lawful. You have seen how they were sanctifiers because through them, yes, Christ, the Church was. Yes, they were valid and lawful.
So, in this jubilee, that the Pope puts in the balance, facing what he asks – rejoice a deleterious council – you see, it has no weight.
What we need today to ask us to our patron saint, St. Pius X, is at once the strongest in faith, this great unity in our lives, guided and led by this beautiful faith. It is asking this great charity in these times of confusion that so many people unfortunately are lost, as are lost; great charity to them. Do not judge, do not condemn, but we remain in this great faithfulness that characterized you for so long, it is she who will be for those true light.
So be it.
Father Patrick de La Rocque, a priest of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X
Transcript: Y. R-B for LPL
(1) In presenting officially to John Paul II in 2001. The problem of liturgical reform (PRL), St. Pius X wanted to show the existing intimate link between the liturgical and theological crisis crisis. Dissonance Episcopal teachings occurred since, clearly show the urgency of doctrinal clarification, which alone will enable a true liturgical renewal. [The problem of liturgical reform: on sale at the French Library at the price of € 35 5.]
*NB Subsequently, this sermon was removed almost immediately by Menzingen who wiped it clean from the SSPX (French) website…
But, The SSPX will only be awarded “faculties” to absolve sin only for 365 days. Then, their Fair permit expires… oi…
Francis Grants Faculties to the SSPX
Posted by Dawn Marie on September 1, 2015 at 7:38am in Sample TitleView Discussions (posted on Crusaders of The Immaculate Heart)
Francis (the freemason) announces wide indulgences for mercy Jubilee, grants Lefebvrites faculties
And in a striking move for church unity in expressing God’s mercy, the pope has even granted priests of the schismatic and traditionalist Society of St. Pius X faculties to offer absolution of sins “validly and licitly” to those who approach them for confession.
Francis made the announcement of the new indulgences and abilities in a letter sent Tuesday to the president of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, which is organizing the holy year on his behalf.
The letter, published by the Vatican in seven languages, is striking for the global scope the pontiff envisions the Jubilee year taking, with availability for pardon and mercy seemingly available to all….
*Step by step they slowly work to swallow them whole. Incredible how many people will cite this as a victory for Tradition rather than the reality for which it is, the suicide of the same! Recognized by apostates and heretics, freemasons and anti-catholic infiltrators is no victory. Only their conversion can be considered a victory and this is reserved to God alone!
My comment: Well said, DM. Succinct and accurate. Heaven help us all. May Pope Francis convert to The One, True Catholic Faith of Tradition.
Without The Archbishop ordaining the then 4 Bishops out of a State of Emergency, we would not have The Traditional Catholic Teachings and Latin Mass: both True To Christ. We would have no future. Pope Paul VI was in error; God have mercy on his soul.
Thank you, Archbishop Lefebvre. Requiescat in pace. †Amen.
Image above courtesy of:
I wrote this letter to Tradition in Action, and although they did not respond to it, they did put it on their website:
I hope this letter helps people scrutinize which missal is good, and preferably NOT to buy reprints, since many, although claiming to be a faithful reprint, are not, and indeed have ‘revisions.’
Any comments? I think I may burn it after all.
God bless you, and be careful of what is being presented to you, even in SSPX chapels. I choose to stick with the resistance priests/Marian Corps SSPX.
God love you all.
I read the former Q & A regarding the best missal (here and here), and your reply stating you do not recommend any missal in particular, but it is acceptable if it is from before 1955. Agreed.
However, I purchased a 1940 St. Andrew Daily Missal by Dom Gaspar Lefebvre, O.S.B. of the Abbey of St. Andre, by The E.M. Lohmann Co., St. Paul, Minnesota; Nilhil Obstat by Arthurus J. Scanlon, S.T.D. and Imprimatur by Franciscus J. Spellman, D.D.
I thought this was a good missal, but there is a section which talks about the 1922 rubrics of active participation restored to the faithful, including responding to prayers, priests’ liturgical prayers, congregational responses and singing Gregorian Chant and hymns, and dialogue participation at the Mass.
There are also rubrics for the Mass itself, it talks about the people reading aloud one of certain prayers in English at Low Masses, to continue reciting The Lamb of God with the priest, the whole congregation reciting The 2nd Confiteor together with deacon at High Mass or server at Low Mass, as well as other answers to the Communion prayers and, well, it goes on.
Firstly, we ought to warn people to read any missal over very carefully before they buy it, and secondly, should I give this one away, burn it, or keep it? It is a tremendous distraction to me, and I am fraud to give it to anyone, since it might lead them astray.
Thank you and God bless your work at TIA.
A.S., a humble ‘resistor’
Note: This is part II of I, II, & III parts – and ,ore yet to be written. Go to the link above for these 3 and more soon.
Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain
Discrepancies between the Latin and vernacular texts of TLS
In the last article we pointed out discrepancies between the Italian and Latin versions of Pope Pius X’s motu proprio, Tra le Sollecitudini (TLS), mentioning that the word “active” had been added to the Italian text to describe the participation of the laity.
Here we shall deal more closely with the Italian version of TLS published in the Acta Sanctae Sedis in relation to the authentic Latin text and show how, on the crucial issue of the participation of the faithful in the liturgy, they diverge in meaning. Clearly, they cannot both represent the mind of the Pope.
Let us examine § 3 of the Latin version, which indicates Pope Pius X’s intentions. It says in a few succinct words that Gregorian Chant, transmitted by tradition, is to be fully restored to the sacred rites: Cantus gregorianus, quem transmisit traditio, in sacris solemnibus omnino est instaurandus.
It then goes on to explain why Gregorian Chant should be given back to the people, so that in particular the Christian faithful may once again, in the custom of their forebears, participate more ardently in the liturgy: Praesertim apud populum cantus gregorianus est instaurandus, quo vehementius Christicolae, more maiorum, sacrae liturgiae sint rursus participes.
Now, we shall examine the pitfalls of having a document in the vernacular (both Italian and English) and the misconceptions that can arise because of faulty translations.
“By the people”
TLS says that Gregorian Chant should be restored nell’uso del popolo (for the use of the people) in the liturgy. It does not specify which people or for what purpose – singing or listening – they are to use the Chant. Even worse, the English version states that the use of Gregorian Chant by the people is what the Pope intended. The underlying suggestion made by these vague and generalized paraphrases is that “the people” means the whole congregation and that the Pope wanted them all to join in the Chant.
But that is an assumption that is not supported by the Latin text, which states that Gregorian Chant is to be restored apud populum, i.e., among or in the presence of the faithful; in other words, in the churches. The Pope had already expressed this idea in his Introduction: ubi Christicolae congregantur (there where the Christian faithful gather).
Apud is a preposition that indicates proximity or geographical location and cannot be translated by a phrase indicating instrumentality, as in something done “by the people.” In saying that Gregorian Chant should be restored to the people, the Pope gave no indication in this passage or elsewhere in the document that he wanted it to be sung by all the faithful.
The problem revolves around the interpretation of “participation” of the laity in the liturgy as understood by Pope Pius X. Whereas the noun participatio is used on its own in the Latin version, the Italian translation of TLS exceeds the bounds of equivalence by adding the word “active”: “partecipazione attiva” to it. This happens several times, even though there is no equivalent of “active” in the Latin text.
Active participation in singing has become the norm in Catholic churches
As accuracy is of primary concern in order to ensure that translations convey the full meaning of the original, it cannot be assumed that the drafter of the Latin version felt no need to include the equivalent of “active” on the grounds that this was implied in “participation.”
(Incidentally, the Italians were the first to translate pro multis in the Words of Consecration by “for all” on the assumption that “for many” implied “for all,” but this was an erroneous assumption that led to a misunderstanding of the nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.)
No part of the Latin version of the motu proprio indicates that the Pope envisaged an “active” role for the congregation. Paragraphs 12-14 show that the only authorized lay performers are choir members, women excluded. As the raison d’être of Gregorian Chant was the text, not the people, the intention of the Pope was to clothe the text with beauty (verba liturgiae exornare – to embellish the words of the liturgy), not to make the people vociferate.
Those who insist that TLS was a manifesto for congregational singing make the mistake of giving precedence to so-called “active” participation over the lex orandi (the way prayers and liturgical texts transmit the Faith in the immutable Latin language.)
“A more active part”
The Latin version uses the word vehementius to indicate the manner in which the faithful should participate in the liturgy. This is loosely and incorrectly translated in the Italian and English versions to say that all should play a “more active part” (parte più attiva) in the liturgy, and the impression is given that this is accomplished by everyone singing Gregorian Chant. But the Latin text does not support this conclusion.
Vehementius is related to the Latin adverb vehementer, which has been used throughout classical antiquity, and also in ecclesiastical texts, to indicate intensity of emotions, strength of feelings and other interior dispositions of the human mind. It can be translated by “greatly” or “exceedingly.” (1)
Pope Pius X used it thus: vehementer optemus (we ardently desire) in the Introduction to the motu proprio to show his fervent desire to restore Gregorian Chant. He also used it in his encyclical Vehementer Nos of 1906 to convey the depth of his grief over the injustices to the Church occasioned by the recent French law on State secularism.
Vehementius, the comparative form of vehementer, can be translated by “more ardently / more fervently / to a greater degree.” There are no grounds for believing that the Pope was making a comparison between singers and non-singers or suggesting that the latter were somehow deficient in relation to the former. Rather, he was comparing the suitability of Gregorian Chant and profane styles of music (2) in their ability to enhance prayerful participation in the liturgy.
The Pope called for trained choirs of male voices singing pure chant
In § 2, the Pope referred to the special power of suitable sacred music on the minds of the faithful who listen to it (in animis audientium illam), moving them to devotion and making them better disposed for the reception of the fruits of grace coming from the celebration of the Mass. The key concept here is that an intellectual grasp of the nature of the Mass is greatly facilitated by listening to the sublime strains of Gregorian Chant sung by a well trained choir – not by the entire congregation. [emphasis, mine.]
Listening is, therefore, approved by the Pope as a way of participating fruitfully in the liturgy. This is reinforced in § 9, which states that the Chant must be sung by the choir for the benefit of the faithful who listen, and in such a way that it must be intelligible to them, i.e., clearly enunciated so as not to obscure the text. (3)
But, in order to produce the desired effect of appealing to the higher faculties of the soul, especially the intellect, the execution of the Chant must be undertaken by trained choirs: the voices must be pure, restrained, lacking any element of worldliness or self-expression. This was one of the reasons why the Pope did not include a role for the congregation in singing any part of the liturgy.
Sacred music in the Mass has always been regarded as “participatory” for the faithful insofar as it functions to edify, educate and lift them to devotion. So, pursuing one’s private devotions to the background of liturgical chant performed by the choir cannot be interpreted as non-participation. Yet the liturgical reformers argued that a true understanding of the Mass by the faithful required the elimination of such silent prayers in favor of direct vocal participation. Pope Pius X had given no such directive.
“In ancient times”
Liturgists have hastily jumped to the conclusion that the Pope wanted the Church to return to the practice of the early Christians who had included some congregational singing in the liturgy. Where did they get that impression? Certainly not from the Latin version of the motu proprio, which mentions nothing about “ancient times.”
The Pope called for a return to Gregorian chant following Catholic tradition
The impression arose from the vernacular texts regarding the meaning of the Latin phrase more maiorum (according to the customs of the ancestors) as used by Pope Pius X in § 3 with reference to Gregorian Chant. The Italian version uses the ambiguous expression “anticamente,” which could mean either in antiquity (4) or simply formerly. The English version, ignoring the second meaning, states that Gregorian Chant used to be the custom in some unspecified “ancient times.” But neither comes near to an accurate translation of more maiorum.
We need to know the relevance of this particular phrase and why it was chosen as being most appropriate. The mos maiorum (custom of the ancestors) was the unwritten code of traditional values observed by the ancient Romans and incorporated into their laws. It represented their time-honored cultural and social practices and provided guidelines for private, political and military life in Roman times. (5)
Just as adherence to tradition gave the Romans a sense of what was fitting and proper, the same could be said for the suitability of Gregorian Chant, which had a long and venerable tradition in the Church. The mos maiorum was the medium of transmission of Gregorian Chant, as the Pope explained: it had been handed down by tradition (quem transmisit traditio).
Now, we can see clearly why Gregorian Chant should be restored to the people: so that, through its special power to move the soul, they can once again participate in the liturgy more maiorum – according to the custom of previous generations of Catholics, before the fashion for theatrical and profane music had invaded the churches.
There is, thus, no reference to or recommendation of congregational singing, which, if it took place at some times and in some places, was never an established and universal custom of the Roman rite. So, it could not have been designated as part of the mos maiorum.
We can be sure that the translation “in ancient times” is false for two reasons. First, because more maiorum refers to an ongoing, unbroken tradition, and, second, because customs that have been discarded for centuries cannot be reincorporated into the liturgy without destroying its intrinsically traditional nature. Indeed, any attempt to do so was later condemned as “antiquarianism” by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei.
Thus we read, for instance, in De Bello Africo Commentarius that “Quibus ex rebus Caesar vehementer commotus” (Caesar was greatly alarmed by these things), and in De Bello Civili that his famous Ninth Legion was “vehementer attenuata” (greatly diminished).
In § 6, the Pope particularly deplored the style of music that had recently been used in the liturgy: “Among the different kinds of modern music, that which appears less suitable for accompanying the functions of public worship is the theatrical style, which was in the greatest vogue, especially in Italy, during the last century. This of its very nature is diametrically opposed to Gregorian Chant and classic polyphony, and therefore to the most important law of all good sacred music. Besides the intrinsic structure, the rhythm and what is known as the conventionalism of this style adapt themselves but badly to the requirements of true liturgical music.”
Clarity of enunciation was also emphasized by Canon 8 of the Council of Trent.
This is obviously not the intended meaning here for two reasons. First, Gregorian Chant as a distinctive corpus of music did not exist in the early Christian era. Secondly, the use of the Imperfect Tense “solevasì” in Italian indicates an action that had been going on for an extended period of time (such as the Gregorian Chant tradition), not something that had disappeared a long time ago (such as congregational singing), for which a different Past Tense would have had to be used.
Virgil’s Aeneid celebrates the mos maiorum of the Roman people, as depicted in the character of Aeneas. He epitomized the Roman ideal of pietas, the core concept of ancient Roman morality which included duties to religion, the family, the wider community and the patria.
Posted March 12, 2014
May God have mercy.
“I accept with sincere belief the doctrine of faith as handed
down to us from the Apostles by the orthodox Fathers,
always in the same sense and with the same interpretation.” – Pope St. Pius X
“The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries
nor innovators, but men of tradition.” – Pope St. Pius X
FAREWELL, SSPX. Number CCCLV (355) — 3rd May 2014
Bad news from France : the 40-year fight for the Faith by the Society of St Pius X against the modernists in Rome is virtually over. Oh, the Society’s priories, schools, seminaries and associated convents and monasteries will continue to function, to provide for at least a while valid sacraments and decent doctrine, maintaining all the appearances of Tradition, but the essential fight for the complete Faith will be censored, or self-censored, out of existence. It looks like being only a limited number of priests more that will have the understanding of Archbishop Lefebvre’s work and the necessary courage to break ranks and take to the hills.
The news is that the modernists in Rome are offering to the Society a « recognition by tolerance » without the need for any formal agreement or signed document such as raised within the SSPX so much opposition to a deal with Rome in the spring and early summer of 2012. Here is the essence of how the Society’s Second Assistant, Fr. Alain Nély, expressed it, with enthusiasm, to two members of religious Orders three months ago : « The solution for the SSPX will be its unilateral recognition by Rome…we will not be asked to sign anything…to see how things evolve…we shall see. »
To prevent such a revelation from spreading, the Society’s Superior General wrote to the two religious concerned that they had misunderstood Fr. Nély’s remarks because there was no kind of « agreement » in view. Of course not. Therein lies the cunning of the proposed « recognition » without signature. It will allow numbers of SSPX priests to pretend that nothing will have changed so that they can continue their ministry just as before. Thus, as reported, Bishop Fellay himself recently told SSPX seminarians in Zaitzkofen : « There is no question of signing any agreement, etc., etc.» However, ten minutes later, « But if Rome proposes a recognition of tolerance for us, that’s a different matter, that would be very good. »
And so there is every likelihood, sooner rather than later, that a large number of SSPX priests will docilely follow their official leaders into the embrace of the loving modernists in Rome, an embrace that will become over time as tight as necessary to stifle any remaining effort to fight against that deadly modernism which is killing off the official Church and putting millions of souls on the path to Hell. In retrospect one may guess that Bishop Fellay has worked skilfully with the Romans towards this embrace for at least the last 15 years. Bishop de Galarreta has seen what is at stake, but has thrown in his lot with Bishop Fellay. Bishop Tissier also sees clearly the deadly threat to the Archbishop’s work, but he does not see the need to follow the Archbishop’s example of putting the Faith before all normal rules of obedience and unity.
And so, dear friends, if we wish to keep the fullness of the Faith and help others to do so, we must at least internally take to the hills. Have no fear. Keep a cool head. There is no need to lose heart, or despair. God does not change, and the fight for his cause becomes more glorious than ever. Priests, keep watch, and above all do not deceive yourselves that nothing in the Society is changing. It has already essentially changed. Lay-folk, keep watch also, and pray, and God will give you the leaders and priests of your prayers. In God we trust, and in his Blessed Mother.
Catholics, when you see how Rome fulfils
A cry for recognition, take to the hills !