AMBIGIOUS LANGUAGE-THE DEVILS QUICKSAND
“And the Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it” (St. Jn. I:5).
When the Divine Saviour stood surrounded by the pharasaical pack of wolves as they tried to catch Him in His speech, Our Lord answered them, “If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe Me?…I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of My Father, they give testimony of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep” (St. Jn. X:25). St. Paul calls Our Lord “Splendor Gloriae”;The Brightness of the Father’s Glory” (Heb. I:3) in Whom “there is no change, nor shadow of alteration,” nor confusion. The Holy Ghost relegates the state of confusion to the enemies of God “who loveth and maketh a lie” as a punishment for obstinately refusing the Light of the Truth (Apoc. XXI: ).
“Ambiguous” means something that can be interpreted in two ways. When such language is used in matters of the Faith it causes immense confusion! St. Pius X in his Encyclical “Pascendi” exposes the tactic of the Modernist clergy who resort to ambiguous language in order to introduce their wicked novelties. He condemns such deliberate craftiness meant to muddle the meaning of any doctrine, or worse,lead to the loss of Faith!
Such deviant tactics triumphed in all the documents of Vatican II, as Abp. Lefebvre himself witnessed and Michael Davies treated in his “Liturgical Timebombs.” Abp. Lefebvre refers to this during the course of the Liberal Council when the Modernist, Schillebeeckx himself, wrote, “We know very well what we are doing in having EQUIVOCAL PHRASES in the schemas of the Council. We shall proceed from there AFTER the Council” [Emphasis mine]. Recently an arch-Modernist, Cardinal Kasper, testified to this deliberate use of double speech in the Council documents. He said, “In many places the [Council Fathers] had to find COMPROMISE FORMULAS, in which, often the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the Conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception IN EITHER DIRECTION” [Emphasis mine].
Ambiguous language is the friendly atmosphere for heresies and Modernism (“the synthesis of all heresies” – St. Pius X) to take root and grow. That is why the Catholic Church in Her Tradition vigorously defends Scholasticism, St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy and theology, and the “unevolving” language of Latin. For clergy, faithful to Tradition, clarity of doctrine is crucial in this Combat for the Faith and nothing can be more repulsive and abhorrent to the Catholic mind than the use of ambiguous language. It has no place in the writings, documents or sermons of any Catholic, especially priests and bishops,….and popes!
St. Athanasius saw the entire Catholic Faith hinge on one Greek dipthong! The entire future of the survival of the Catholic Faith hung on two letters! “Homoousion” meant: “Christ is of ONE SUBSTANCE with the Father” (i.e.: “Consubstantial”); and the heretical: “Homoiousion” of Fr. Arius could be interpreted in two different ways, Catholic or heretical. Either “Christ is of ONE SUBSTANCE, or, of LIKE SUBSTANCE with the Father.” How many Martyrs died to defend the Truth of the clear Catholic doctrine of “Homoousion”! Words, like the glass that holds the wine, hold the meaning of things. If the glass is shattered or cracked, the wine is lost. So too, misuse of words can shatter or change the meanings of words.
Let us come to the facts of the present crisis in Tradition. At the time of the Second Vatican Council, the Liberals had to invent loopholes in the documents to attain their desire for the Church to compromise and “be accepted” by the world. Is it no less true that Liberal minds in Tradition wanted to compromise clarity of language in order to”become more acceptable” by the Conciliar Church? It became official in July, 2012 with a whole new orientation towards “normalization” with Modernist Rome. Ignoring the warnings and direction of the Founder (who has the special grace of state as “Founder”!), the Society of St. Pius X leaders had to re-define “conversion of Rome”, make a false separation between “principles of prudence” and “principles of the Faith” in applying the questions of canonical normalization with Modernist Rome, and utilize ambiguous language to advance their goals. To demonstate this, try figuring out what some of these quoted texts and interviews actually mean:
1. “Many things which we would have condemned as being from the Council are in fact not from the Council, but the common understanding of it…. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which is in fact a very, very limited one. A very limited one. It would mean our talks with Rome, they clearly said that to mean that there would be a right to error or right to choose each religion, is false.” (Superior General CNS Interview May 2012).
2. “As for the Council, when they asked me the question, ‘Does Vatican II belong to Tradition?'” I answered, “I would like to hope that that is the case.” (Superior General, DICI 6-8-12)
3. “Tradition is the LIVING transmission of revelation “usque ad nos” and the Church in it’s doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition PROGRESSES in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, not as a contrary novelty, but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith” (Doctrinal Preamble, III, [Emphasis mine]
4.”The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the, SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, which, in turn, ENLIGHTENS – in other words DEEPENS and subsequently makes explicit – certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or NOT YET CONCEPTUALLY FORMULATED” ( Doctrinal Preamble, III, 4). [Emphasis mine]
5.”We declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments…LEGITIMATELY promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II” (Doctrinal Preamble III,7) [Emphasis mine].
6.”Concerning the reply I sent to Rome…from what I gather from private sources, I have the impression it is acceptable. Amongst ourselves, I think it will have to be explained properly because there are (in this document) expressions or declarations which are so very much on a tight rope that if you do not have a positive mind or if you are wearing black or pink glasses, YOU WILL SEE IT AS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. So we shall have to properly explain that this letter changes absolutely nothing of our position. But, if one wants to read the letter in a crooked way, it will be possible to understand this letter the wrong way”(SSPX Superior General, Birgnoles, May 2012 – Nouvelles de Chretiente no. 135).
7. “It should be noted, by the way, that we have not sought a practical agreement. That is untrue. We have not refused ‘a priori’, to consider, as you ask, the Pope’s offer. For the common good of the Society, we should prefer by far the current solution of an intermediary ‘status quo’, but clearly, Rome is not going to tolerate it any longer” (Superior General & Two Assistants, letter dated April 14, 2012). N.B.: The Doctrinal Preamble for a practical agreement was sent the next day!
How is it possible that those trained to refute Modernism and denounce the tactics of the modernists could possibly resort to using those very same means to attain their new goal; to be “recognized as we are” and have “justice done” to unjust penalties? What happened to the primacy of THE FAITH? Whatever happened to “no agreement until Rome converts to Tradition”? What happened to Abp. Lefebvre’s proof for the moment of Rome’s conversion, namely, the professing of all the papal teachings and condemnations from the Council of Trent down to Pius XII’s “Humani Generis”? A few “crumbs of acknowledgement” to some aspects of Tradition are far from proofs of Rome’s conversion! “Summorum Pontificum” and the so called “lifting” of excommunications that never existed, are mere tactics and maneuvers, as Abp. Lefebvre himself named other supposed moves on the part of the Holy See, and are none other than attempts to swing the SSPX into the Conciliar Church. Again and again, the proof is in the consequences of all the Traditional Catholic communities that made agreements with Rome. The proof lies in the Roman authorities unwavering adherence to Vatican II!
Have the men of Tradition forgotten the Divine Words of the only Savior; “Take up your cross daily and follow Me?” Have the defenders of the Deposit of Faith grown weary in the long battle?
“When those chosen to defend the Faith don’t want to carry this cross, and choose to exchange resistance and self-sacrifice for compromise and “recognition” in the name of a “utopian unity”, then, what happens to Truth? What happens to the only True Faith? What happens to the souls?
“The Doctrinal Preamble of April 15, 2012, OFFICIALLY signed and submitted to Rome by the Society superiors, is a testimony of the willingness to surrender the Fight for the Faith through explicit expressions of ambiguity. This ambiguity (similar to the practice of freemasons, moranos and enemy infiltrators) justifies the SSPX Resistance! The facts speak for themselves. Ever since the General Chapter Statement & 6 Conditions, the Letter of Response to the 3 Bishops (April 14, 2012), and the notorious Doctrinal Preamble, there has been a weakening of doctrine, loss of souls and confusion. The crisis becomes more severe. Clarification becomes essential!” (Dom Daniel Joaquim Maria de Santana, FBVM).
“Affirm the Truth!” the Archbishop used to tell the young priests. Why? Because, as Bishop Williamson used to say, “The Truth stands on its own.” St. John calls it “the victory which overcometh the world, our Faith!” (1 Jn. V:4) It is not ours to change or modernize, nor does it come from us, but it is the Sacred Deposit that must be handed down from generation to generation (“tradere” means “to hand down”, in Latin, from which “tradition” is derived). Is this not the glory of Catholic Tradition, that, like it’s sacred Founder Himself, is always the same, victorious over devils and men, over heresies, and always beautiful? “Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same forever!” (Heb XIII:8)
“It is on the battlefield of Doctrine that the battles are won or lost, and what decides the future,” said the great Cardinal Pie of Poitiers. If the Society recovers its former clear defense of Catholic doctrine, which, in turn, demands the public rejection and repudiation of the compromising language used in recent documents and interviews, then God may let the “pilot light” carry on. If not, it will continue the path of compromise towards the open jaws of Conciliar modernism and “official recognition” at the price of the unambiguous Truth and countless souls! What then? …Our Lord put it this way, “I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out!” (St. Lk. XIX: 40) The Faith will be kept, even if its reduced to a handful!
Let the great Abp. Lefebvre have the final word about liberals and their love of ambiguous words – the Devil’s quicksand!
“Catholic liberals have kept on saying that their will for Tradition is equivalent to that of most intransigent persons. The compromise they have sought is not theoretical but practical….They always come back to this reasoning. They are telling us: ‘See, we are shepherds. We accept the reality, we are concrete people, we are practical!’ But what is this practice? The practice is the implementation of principles with the help of the virtue of prudence, it is nothing other than that.
“What is the practice when the principles are missing?…’Yes, yes, yes, we agree, we share the same Credo, etcetera. Yes, but when we find ourselves in the world, then one must adjust oneself to the level of the others, one must live with the others, if not, you will never convert others.’ To say this is a total error!…Popes have perceived the danger of those Catholics that are elusive because they claim, when one wants to corner them: ‘No, no, I agree.’ But afterwards, they come to terms with the enemies of the Church…they are traitors…more dreadful than avowed enemies…they divide the minds, destroy unity, weaken strengths that, instead, should be all together coordinated against the enemy…You will be told that it is you who cause division, but it is not possible to divide when one abides in the Truth…those who divide are those who try to diminish the Truth in order to find agreement with everyone…Those who have it wrong must convert to the Truth and should not try to find common grounds between Truth and error…” (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Conference, Econe, Jan. 1974).
It seems necessary to comment on the April 15th, 2012 Doctrinal Preamble proposed by His Excellency Bishop B. Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, to Cardinal Levada. It was a secret for almost a year and was finally made public this past few weeks. This version of the Doctrinal Preamble met strong protests at the General Chapter. Consequently Bishop Fellay withdrew it without however repudiating it. This text consequently gives us an idea of the concessions, which Bishop Fellay would agree to concede, should he be allowed to do so.
As a matter of fact, Bishop Fellay seems to accept to some extent:
1.- Vatican II
2.- the N.O.M.
3.- the New Code of Canon Law.
“II.- We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council. (1)”
“(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749, 750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.”
This profession of faith says: “I also adhere with religious obedience of will and faith to the doctrines which, either the Roman Pontiff, or the college of bishops, pronounce when exercising an authentic magisterium, even if they have no intention of proclaiming them in a definitive act.” This profession of faith is preceded by an introduction explaining the meaning of the said profession: “It consequently proved essential to prepare adjusted texts in order to update them as far as their style and their contents were concerned and attune them with the teachings of Vatican II and documents developing them.”
This is Archbishop Lefebvre’s comments about this document issued by Cardinal Ratzinger: “The errors of the Council and its reforms remain the official norm that has been confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger’s March 1989 profession of faith”. (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey)
“The new profession of faith which was drafted by Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly includes the acceptance of the Council and its consequences. It is the Council and its consequences, which have destroyed the Holy Mass, which have destroyed our Faith, which have destroyed catechisms and the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over civil societies. How could we accept this! […] We have to keep the Catholic Faith and protect it by all possible means.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Le Bourget, November 19th, 1989)
“This is leading us to a contradiction since, since at the same time as Rome gives to the Fraternity of St Peter, as an example, or to Le Barroux Abbey or some other group, an authorisation to say the traditional Mass, at the same time they ask young priests to sign a profession of faith in which they accept the spirit of the Council. This is a contradiction: the spirit of the Council is expressed in the New Mass. How can one wish to keep the Traditional Mass and accept the spirit that destroys the Traditional mass? This is a total self-contradiction. One day, slowly, they will demand from those to whom they have granted the Mass of St Pius V, the Traditional Mass, that they also accept the New Mass. And they will just say that this is only complying with what they have signed, since they have signed that they accept the spirit of the Council and the Council’s reforms. One just cannot place himself in such a contradictory situation, in such an incredible non sequitur. This is quite an uncomfortable situation. This is what makes things so difficulty for these groups, which have signed this: it is a dead end for them.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Friedrichshafen homily, April 29th, 1990)
“III, 1.- We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de Episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.”
“III, 3.- Tradition is the living transmission of revelation ‘usque as nos’ and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, not as a contrary novelty, but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith.”
There is a contradiction between these two sentences, inasmuch as the expression “living” has precisely been constantly used by the Modernists in order to imply their doctrinal evolutionism and their “contrary novelties”.
“III, 4.- The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens – in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit – certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated (8).”
“(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, No. 21.”
This means that not only the Council in the light of Tradition, but also Tradition in the light of the Council.
To say that the Second Vatican Council “in turn, enlightens – in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit – certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated” is absurd as far as it flatly contradicts a number of them.
“III, 5.- The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, (1) must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, (2) without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.”
Bp. Williamson, who used to be Bp. Fellay’s professor, explains:
The first part here (1) is perfectly true, so long as it means that any Conciliar novelty “difficult to reconcile” will be flatly rejected if it objectively contradicts previous Church teaching. But (1) is directly contradicted by (2) when (2) says that no Conciliar novelty may be “interpreted” as being in rupture with Tradition. It is as though one said that all football teams must wear blue shirts, but football team shirts of any other colour are all to be interpreted as being nothing other than blue! What nonsense! But it is pure “hermeneutic of continuity”. (Eleison No. 300 and Open Letter to the Priests of the Priestly Society of St Pius X of Maunday Thursday 2013 by Bp. Williamson)
“III, 7.- We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.”
Archbishop Lefebvre said that it could be valid, but that it was nevertheless dangerous since it furthers heresy (favens haeresim). As Fr. de La Rocque explained in his two conferences of May 12th and 18th, 2012 on the Roman doctrinal discussions, to acknowledge the validity of the N.O.M. without mentioning that it is dangerous would be hypocritical and an unacceptable mental reservation.
Moreover, this “legitimately promulgated” expression has always been disputed, and not only in traditional circles. In his editorial to the Friends and Benefactors of the French District, Fr. de Cacqueray wrote: “The new Mass can in no way be pleasing to God because it is misleading, harmful and ambiguous”.
It just cannot be enforced by a law as such in the whole Church. As a matter of fact the purpose the liturgical law is to serve with authority the common good of the Church and all that is required. Paul VI’s new Mass being short of this cannot be supported by a law: it is not only evil, it is illegitimate, despite the apparent lawfulness it was enwrapped with and still is (Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, Disputed Vatican II)
The Novus Ordo Missae, in particular, is far too dangerous for the Common Good of the Church to be regarded as a true law.
The Canon Law
“III, 8.- In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.”
Bp. Fellay accepts the new Code of Canon Law, “in the light of Tradition” (III, 5), while Abp. Lefebvre had declared “this Canon Law is unacceptable”. (COSPEC 99B, March 14th, 1983) For him it is more even harmful than the Council itself, since it puts into laws the letter and the spirit of Vatican II, going as far as ignoring important corrections like the Nota explicativa.
In 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre, who had already progressively been disappointed by Modernistic texts from Pope John Paul II, was terribly shocked by the new Code of Canon Law converting into laws the deviations of the Council. » (La Porte Latine, quoted by Avec l’Immaculée:
“Our concern became even more vehement with the aberrations of the new Code of Canon Law, not to say its heresies.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, chapter 21)
“One discovers an entirely new conception of the Church.” (Conference, Turin, March 24th, 1984)
“We can find in it the doctrine that was already suggested in the Lumen Gentium text of the Council, according to which the college of bishops united to the Pope holds the supreme power in the Church, and this in a regular and permanent way.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, chapter 12)
“This work, namely the Code, is in perfect accord with the nature of the Church, especially as has been proposed by the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, this new Code can be conceived as an effort to expose in canonical language this doctrine, i.e., conciliar Ecclesiology. The elements of this Ecclesiology are the following: Church = people of God; hierarchical authority = collegial service; Church = communion; and lastly the Church with Her duty to ecumenism. Each one of these notions is ambiguous and will allow Protestant and Modernist errors to inspire from now on the legislation of the Church. It is the authority of the Pope and of the Bishops which is going to suffer; the distinction between the clergy and the laity will also diminish; the absolute and necessary character of the Catholic faith will also be extenuated to the profit of heresy and schism; and the fundamental realities of sin and grace will be worn down.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 24, March 1983)
“Well, in the new Code of Canon Law there are two supreme powers in the Church: the supreme power of the Pope, and then of the Pope with the bishops. Consequently there are two ordinary subjects of this supreme and total power in the Church. It is exactly what the Nota explicativa had corrected during the Council. For, if the bishops have with the Pope and not without the Pope the supreme power in the Church, they have a right to demand to exert this power which is theirs with the Pope and to demand from the Pope that they may participate in the exercise of this power over the Universal Church. This never ever happened in Church history. They exercised this power when the Pope summoned them in a council and allowed them to participate in his power in the council. It is in fact because they were meeting with the Pope that they then by an extraordinary act […] had this power over the Universal Church and not in an ordinary manner! Consequently this is restricting the power of the Pope. This means that in practice they are not taking into account the Nota explicativa of the Council in the new Canon Law. That had been a small revolution in the Council. And the Pope felt obliged to intervene and to correct what was in that decree of the Church and adjust it according to the faith of the Church. These are examples I am giving you, which matter to our faith.” (COSPEC 100A, May 20th, 1983)
“The faithful are those who, inasmuch as they are incorporated in Christ by baptism are constituted as the people of God, and who for this reason, having been made partakers in their manner in the priestly, prophetic and royal functions of Christ, are called to exercise the mission that God entrusted to the Church to accomplish in the world. […] There is no longer any clergy. What, then, happens to the clergy? […] It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church. […] This is precisely what Luther and the Protestants did, laicizing the priesthood. It is consequently very serious.” (Conference, Turin, March 24th, 1984)
“You know that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion to a Protestant. (Canon 844) It is what they call Eucharistic hospitality. These are Protestants who remain protestants and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To give Communion to a Protestant is to rupture the Faith and its unity.” The Protestants must make “an abjuration in order to remove this obex [obstacle] that their baptism might bear fruit. After this, grace will remain in their souls and they will be worthy of salvation. But, as long as they remain attached to their errors and deny truths which are part of the faith, they cannot receive grace.” (Conference, Turin, March 24th, 1984)
“What is the object or aim of canon law, of the fundamental canonical laws? You have two books, which you may read on that subject: De norme generales juris canonici. Two volumes by Professor Michiels, a Franciscan, which give the answer – the general norms of law – and consequently the foundations of the ecclesiastical law itself, and of canon law. Well, he says it openly: Ut patet fondamentum vitae supernaturalis ecclesiae curae et potestati concreditae, est fides. This aim is the faith. […] Take as an example the fact that the new canon law no longer requests in a Protestant Catholic mixed marriage to commit in writing to the Catholic baptism of the children, this a serious violation of the faith, a serious violation of the faith.” (COSPEC 100A, May 20th, 1983) “Then what should we think about this? – Well, this Code of Canon Law is unacceptable.” (COSPEC 99B, March 14th, 1983)
This is certainly enough to prove that this Declaration or Doctrinal Preamble of April 15th, 2012 by Bishop Fellay is blatantly at variance and even in contradiction with the line of the Archbishop about the Council, the Mass and the Canon Law. He was however just about to sign an agreement on this basis on June 13th, 2012, if it had not been rejected by Cardinal Levada – as not enough –, a refusal confirmed by the Pope’s letter to Bishop Fellay dated June 30th.
So despite the fact that the Superior General has been roaming all-over the world these past eight months in order to reassure people that he was not going to “sell” the Society, one may still be somewhat skeptical. This document is evidence that the worst so-called “gossips” were not that wrong.
The top priority to “overcome the crisis” clearly is not to “overcome our abnormal canonical status”, of which the Archbishop was saying that it is “secondary”, but to keep our Catholic Faith, without yielding to Liberal pressures, which would make us lose it. Let us always remember these words from the Archbishop during a spiritual conference to his seminarians on December 21st, 1984, which, after unsuccessfully trying the impossible in May 1988, he supported until his death:
“Some are prepared to sacrifice the fight for the faith by saying: ‘Let us first re-enter the Church! Let us first do everything to integrate the official, public structure of the Church. Let us be silent about dogmatic issues. Let us be silent about the malice of the [New] Mass. Let us keep quiet over the issues of religious freedom, Human Rights, ecumenism. And, once we are inside the Church, we will be able to do this, we will be able to achieve that…’ That’s absolutely false! You don’t enter into a structure, under superiors, by claiming that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.
“What matters to us first and foremost is to maintain the Catholic Faith. That’s what we are fighting for. So, the canonical issue, this purely public and exterior issue in the Church, is secondary. What matters is to stay within the Church… inside the Church, in other words, in the Catholic Faith of all time, in the true priesthood, in the true Mass, in the true sacraments, and the same catechism, with the same Bible. That’s what matters to us. That’s what the Church is. Public recognition is a secondary issue. Thus, we should not seek what is secondary by losing what is primary, by losing what is the primary goal of our fight!
“We cannot place ourselves under an authority whose ideas are liberal and who little by little would condemn us, by the logic of the thing, to accept these liberal ideas and all the consequences of these liberal ideas, which are the new Mass, changes in the liturgy, changes in the Bible, changes in catechism, all these changes…”