Why the Resistance by +Thomas Aquinas, OSB
The reason for the existence of the Resistance is none other than Bishop Fellay with his words and actions. His words minimized the seriousness of the crisis and the Council. His actions exposed Tradition to the same fate as the Ecclesia Dei communities.
+Fellay did not speak like +Lefebvre. +Lefebvre vigorously denounced the errors of the Council as well as those who were the cause of those errors. He warned virtually all the Council popes of their responsibilities. He told John Paul II that if he continued on the path of ecumenism he would no longer be the good shepherd, and in the drawing on Assisi he said, in pictures and words, that John Paul II would go to hell if he continued to be an ecumenist. He told Cardinal Ratzinger that he, Ratzinger, was against the Christianization of society. He denounced the apostasy of conciliar Rome. He denounced the errors and those who committed them, whoever they were. He defended priests and faithful from the modernist contagion. He exposed himself to an invalid but infamous excommunication. He did not retreat in defense of France in the face of the Muslim danger. He protected us against the accordist temptation of Dom Gérard. He was, in short, like the ancient bishops: the defender of Christianity and of the basis of Christianity, which is faith. He was the man of the theological virtues, who upheld our faith and all the virtues.
What about +Fellay, did he continue the actions of +Lefebvre? No. In word and in deed, +Fellay distanced himself from +Lefebvre.
Regarding Religious Liberty, he minimized the gravity of what the Council said. He did not tell the Popes what +Lefebvre had said. He did not attack the errors like +Lefebvre. He did not speak of the two churches like +Lefebvre. He did not clearly distinguish the official Church from the Catholic Church, but spoke of a "specific Church", confusing the faithful and even the priests.
What specific church is this? Do we have to be in this church? We are in the Catholic Church. We recognize the Pope, but not the Conciliar Church of which Cardinal Benelli spoke. We recognize the Pope, but not his doctrine or his acts contrary to Tradition. These acts are not Catholic, but anti-Catholic.
It was under the influence of +Fellay that the 2012 chapter modified the principle enunciated by the 2006 chapter: no practical agreement without doctrinal agreement. This did not please +Fellay and was changed. Under certain conditions, the Fraternity can now reach practical agreement without doctrinal agreement. This is a loophole. A loophole that could lead the Fraternity down the path of the Ecclesia Dei communities. It did not get that far, but it let its guard down and Rome took advantage of that.
+Fellay suppressed internal resistance in the Fraternity by expelling +Williamson and some priests; then he punished others, such as the seven deans who rightly protested against Rome's document on marriages. +Fellay disorganized the Tradition, moved away from +Lefebvre's line and caused others to move away from it as well. This was the reason for the Resistance to exist: to resist such a departure.
We want to follow +Lefebvre in everything, in doctrine and also in practical solutions, because, as Aristotle and St. Thomas teach, the examples of the ancients serve as principles of action. We follow +Lefebvre in doctrine and in action, especially in relation to modernist Rome, and this in order to be faithful to eternal Rome, teacher of truth and holiness.
January 25, 2024
Source: mosteirodasantacruz.org
+Fellay did not speak like +Lefebvre. +Lefebvre vigorously denounced the errors of the Council as well as those who were the cause of those errors. He warned virtually all the Council popes of their responsibilities. He told John Paul II that if he continued on the path of ecumenism he would no longer be the good shepherd, and in the drawing on Assisi he said, in pictures and words, that John Paul II would go to hell if he continued to be an ecumenist. He told Cardinal Ratzinger that he, Ratzinger, was against the Christianization of society. He denounced the apostasy of conciliar Rome. He denounced the errors and those who committed them, whoever they were. He defended priests and faithful from the modernist contagion. He exposed himself to an invalid but infamous excommunication. He did not retreat in defense of France in the face of the Muslim danger. He protected us against the accordist temptation of Dom Gérard. He was, in short, like the ancient bishops: the defender of Christianity and of the basis of Christianity, which is faith. He was the man of the theological virtues, who upheld our faith and all the virtues.
What about +Fellay, did he continue the actions of +Lefebvre? No. In word and in deed, +Fellay distanced himself from +Lefebvre.
Regarding Religious Liberty, he minimized the gravity of what the Council said. He did not tell the Popes what +Lefebvre had said. He did not attack the errors like +Lefebvre. He did not speak of the two churches like +Lefebvre. He did not clearly distinguish the official Church from the Catholic Church, but spoke of a "specific Church", confusing the faithful and even the priests.
What specific church is this? Do we have to be in this church? We are in the Catholic Church. We recognize the Pope, but not the Conciliar Church of which Cardinal Benelli spoke. We recognize the Pope, but not his doctrine or his acts contrary to Tradition. These acts are not Catholic, but anti-Catholic.
It was under the influence of +Fellay that the 2012 chapter modified the principle enunciated by the 2006 chapter: no practical agreement without doctrinal agreement. This did not please +Fellay and was changed. Under certain conditions, the Fraternity can now reach practical agreement without doctrinal agreement. This is a loophole. A loophole that could lead the Fraternity down the path of the Ecclesia Dei communities. It did not get that far, but it let its guard down and Rome took advantage of that.
+Fellay suppressed internal resistance in the Fraternity by expelling +Williamson and some priests; then he punished others, such as the seven deans who rightly protested against Rome's document on marriages. +Fellay disorganized the Tradition, moved away from +Lefebvre's line and caused others to move away from it as well. This was the reason for the Resistance to exist: to resist such a departure.
We want to follow +Lefebvre in everything, in doctrine and also in practical solutions, because, as Aristotle and St. Thomas teach, the examples of the ancients serve as principles of action. We follow +Lefebvre in doctrine and in action, especially in relation to modernist Rome, and this in order to be faithful to eternal Rome, teacher of truth and holiness.
January 25, 2024
Source: mosteirodasantacruz.org