In view of the Communiqué of Rev Fr Bouchacourt the Monastery of the Holy Cross declares to have called H.E. Msgr Richard Williamson to Brazil because he is considered a worthy defender of the Catholic Faith, able to confirm in the Faith not only the monks of the Holy Cross, but also the relgious communities and the faithful, who see with great apprehension the nefarious policy of practical agreements with Rome before Rome converts of its liberal and modernist errors.
Why had the Capuchins, the Dominicans and even the Benedictines of Bellaigue their candidates excluded or threatened to be excluded from the ordinations, if not because of their opposition against an agreement? And this when Rome already didn't want the agreement anymore, at least not at this moment.
To keep the true reasons of what we are experiencing secret, is missing the truth. Why was Msgr Williamson asked to shut down his “Eleison Comments” if not because of the doctrine therein exposed? Why did Msgr Tissier de Mallerais have to interrupt his preaching in the USA, if not because he was against the policy of agreement? Why was Fr. Koller threatened with punishment, if not because he preached against this same policy? Why were the Rev Frs Cardozo, Chazal, Pfeiffer and others either punished or expulsed, if not because of their opposition against this same policy?
Msgr de Galarreta had called for caution some months ago: “For the good of the Society ... and of the Tradition, it's necessary to rapidly close Pandora's box, to avoid discredit and demolition of authority, to avoid contestation, discord, divisions, which may be irreversible.”
And Msgr de Galarreta asked, which would be the required conditions for a totally acceptable proposal, that is, for a victory which only can be doctrinal, because in this whole battle all rests upon the Faith. He himself answered by quoting Msgr Lefebvre: [the Archbishop explaining how he would ask them whether they are in full communion with Quanta Cura etc., many times cited on Ignis Ardens (Fideliter, n°66, November-December 1988, pp. 12-13)]
Conclusion. “Pandora's box” has not been properly closed, the line traced by Msgr Lefebvre has not been followed.
But probably the Rev Fr Bouchacourt will say that, on the contrary, everything was put right at the General Chapter. All is fine in perfect order. Sadly this is not the truth. The General Chapter maintained the objective of the agreement on a different basis than that exposed by H.E. Msgr Marcel Lefebvre. Read the Eleison Comments of Msgr Williamson about the six conditions and you will see how the resolutions of the General Chapter are not sufficient and are different from those of Msgr Lefebvre.
Others will say: what do you have to do with this? I do have, because the Faith is a common good of the Church and I belong to the Church and besides I have responsibility for the monks of Holy Cross and for the faithful who express their confidence towards us.
But they still will say: the obedience transfers the resposibilities to the superiors, and to be obedient is never wrong. Unluckily things are not so simple. This was the way how the majority of the Bishops accepted the Second Vatican Council.
But they still will say: You contribute to the division of Tradition. I respond that the union should be built around the truth, that is around the Catholic Faith. And the words and attitudes of Msgr Fellay sadly are not those of a disciple of Msgr Lefebvre, who defended the truth without concessions. Why silence Msgr Williamson and Msgr Tissier de Mallerais? Read the letter of the three Bishops to Msgr Fellay and his assistants and there you will find the reason of the battle of Tradition and the reason of our attitude.
[Gustavo] Corção [a Brazilian writer, hero of Vat. II resistance] incessantly repeated that a wrong notion of charity and union caused grave damage in the Catholic resistence. When truth and charity are separated, charity ceases to be charity. Many, even of his friends, accused him of a lack of charity because of his articles. But the first charity consists in telling the truth. And Corção was right, as the facts have proved. Msgr Lefebvre was charged with the same accusation.
Concerning union, Corção humorously said that experience had taught him against the popular saying “union makes strength” that union frequently makes weakness. And why? Because union without truth, union made with concessions, union which sacrifices the Faith, is weakness which “makes strong people weak”. And this is what happened with the Second Vatican Council, isn't it? To preserve the good of the union with Paul VI many bishops ended signing inacceptable documents. The union didn't make strength but the opposite.
Now, today in Tradition they want us to join, whatever it may cost, with those who believe, that the errors of the Council are not so grave, that 95% of the Councel are acceptable, that the religious liberty of Dignitatis Humanae is very, very limited, that we should not make super-heresies of the errors of the Council. But that is not true. The Council was the biggest desaster of the history of the Church since it was founded, as Msgr Lefevbre says in his book "From Liberalism to Apostasy". If we should build on this basis or we should unite on this basis, I prefer to abstain from that, and prefer to work for the integral restauration of the Catholic Faith as Msgr Marcel Lefebvre always advised us and reprimanded us, waiting that the Society reanimates anew in the Faith, which is what I hope, because it has the means to do it, it has excellent bishops and priests.
Concerning the accusation that I mislead the faithful, giving the false impression that I invited Msgr Williamson with all permissions of Msgr Fellay, I can say that for a long time I didn't hide our opposition against the policies of Msgr Fellay to anybody; and, even given that the brazilian people may be somewhat green, I don't think that they are as green as the Rev Fr Bouchacourt thinks. On the contrary. Who doesn't know that Msgr Williamson is unpopular in Menzingen? However, here he is popular, because obedience is a virtue only if it submits to higher virtues, above all faith, hope and charity. To misuse obedience as a weapon to paralyse Tradition and repeat the master-stroke of Satan, like Msgr Lefebvre said, who by obedience put the whole Church into disobedience against tradition. We won't do that.
Let them say whatever they'll say. There is a problem, and this problem is of faith and it is grave. [cf. Arsenius, Faber]. Our position is already taken. We support who defends the faith as Msgr Lefebvre, Dom Antônio de Castro Mayer, St. Pius X and the whole Tradition of the Church did. If we have to suffer because of this, we will suffer, for Our Lord has warned us: “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim. 3, 12).
Concerning the Society, we consider it to be a providencial work, founded by a Bishop who took the most difficult virtues to the highest heroism, which are those for which God created the gifts of wisdom, intelligence, counsel, strength, science, piety and fear of God. Msgr Lefebvre, we consider him as a light that shone in the darkness of the modern world, and the Society is his work and his heiress, but with the condition to be true to the received grace. We pray for her and if we oppose the policies of Msgr Fellay, it's not because we wish to be hostile against the Society, but for love of her and of Msgr Fellay himself, like we love the Holy Church and for love of her we fight the liberalism and modernism of her enemies, who installed themselves within her. May God bless and save the Society of St. Pius X, to whom I owe all I received of the best, as much the faith as the priesthood, which I received from the hands of H.E. Msgr Marcel Lefebvre.
Br. Tomás de Aquino
8th of September 2012
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Taken from http://www.spessantotomas.blogspot.com.br/
