Non Possumus reissued this important text of the Dominicans of Avrillé about duality "Catholic Church - Conciliar Church."
The ambiguity of the term "conciliar church" confusing. She can be understood in at least four major ways:
In a first sense, the "conciliar church" is the organization of religion coexisting reconcile with the Catholic Church on the same subject. This is what explains the Dominicans of Avrillé in this text.
According to a second sense, the "conciliar church" is the Catholic that Church and as it is now, decaying or rotting (in its human aspects) through the work of modernist controlling Church since Vatican II.
These first two senses of the term "conciliar church" are not mutually exclusive, but exclude the following two.
In a third sense, the "conciliar church" is that society that ordinary people erroneously identified with the Catholic Church. The company is headed by Francisco and is known everywhere as the "Catholic Church" is no longer Catholic. The true Catholic Church exists to reduced domestic and individual dimensions. This third sense exclude the other three, is held by many sedevacantists, and incline to sedevacantism and schism.
According to a fourth sense, the "conciliar church" is only a bad spirit (liberal and modernist) existing in the Catholic Church. It is favored by Mons. Fellay, Fr Glaize and acuerdistas in general. This fourth sense exclude the other three.
In a letter dated June 25, 1976 Monsignor Lefebvre sent by the Pope, Monsignor Giovanni Benelli first used an expression that became famous: ".
The Conciliar Church" "If they (seminarians) are of goodwill and seriously prepared for priestly ministry in the true fidelity to the Conciliar Church, we'll find the best solution for them."
This conciliar Church we have often spoken in Le Sel de la Terre, but it is pointless to this issue and that is so important. particularly The question we want to address here is: Does the Catholic Church and the conciliar Church have the same hierarchy?
Where do we start?
The principle, where do we start? Endeavor to define the two churches involved. We will according to the four causes, usually distinguished scholastic philosophy.
A society is a moral being (in the case of the Catholic Church, there is only moral union is also spiritual union because of the involvement of supernatural gifts (faith, for example.): It is a union of people who are united by the same order (a common good itself) can be distinguished:
-The material cause , are the people who are united in the society. We say that in the case of the Catholic Church and in the conciliar Church are baptized (with a valid baptism).
-The efficient cause is the founder of the company: Our Lord Jesus Christ in the case of the Catholic Church, the popes of the council, in the case of the Conciliar Church. After the ascension of its founder, is authority that continues the role of efficient cause and keeps society together. Currently, it is the same hierarchy that has the role of efficient cause for the Catholic Church and the conciliar Church.
-'The final cause , the common good is sought by members of society: in the case of the Catholic Church, the good that is sought is salvation; in the case of the Church reconcile the good that is sought is more or less consciously the unity of mankind (broad ecumenism) "What best defines the whole crisis of the Church is truly the liberal-ecumenical spirit" (Monsignor Lefebvre conference April 4, 1978).
-The formal cause is the union of minds and wills of the members in the pursuit of the common good. In the Catholic Church, no union of spirits in the same profession of faith and a union of wills in the practice of the same worship and obedience to the pastors themselves (hence the laws they adopt, namely the canon) law. In the conciliar Church, is also a union of spirits in the acceptance of the same school (the Council) and union of wills in the practice of the new liturgy and obedience to directives of the post-conciliar hierarchy (as the new canon) law. (This union of minds and wills is much less strict than the Church reconcile the Catholic Church. Basta "accept the council" and then everyone can do what you want).
We can define the Catholic Church and society of the baptized who seek to save their souls professing the Catholic faith, practicing the same worship and obedience to Catholic pastors themselves, successors of the Apostles.
As for the Conciliar Church, she is baptized society undergoing the directives of the pope and bishops in their current desire to promote conciliar ecumenism and, consequently, allowed the whole teaching of the council, practicing new liturgy and submitting the new canon law.
Under these conditions, it is possible that the same hierarchy can direct the two companies?
- First objection : It is possible that the same hierarchy directs two Churches. Can imagine that one can direct patriarch Coptic Catholic and Coptic Orthodox? Therefore it is unthinkable to imagine a common hierarchy of the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church.
- Second objection : In fact, there is a hierarchy but two. On one side are the conciliar bishops who lead the conciliar Church and the other bishops who lead Tradition Tradition, ie the Catholic Church.
- Third objection : What they do not see the hierarchy of the Conciliar Church is a pseudo-hierarchy? The pope is no pope because he is not Catholic; as the bishops are not bishops because the rite of episcopal consecration is invalid.
[We added a fourth objection, read on internet: says this objection: " religion of Vatican II is a specifically different and even opposed to the Catholic religion is impossible to reconcile religion is within the Catholic Church. ". We answer: the idea is this: "the conciliar religion is a heresy and it is impossible that there are heretics in the Catholic Church." But the truth is that you can reconcile one's religion without fault, incurring only a material heresy, and given that the baptized who commit heresy material only no longer belong to the Church, can reconcile one's religion without ceasing to be Catholic or being in the Catholic Church. Note Blog]
ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY
We are not the first to say that the two churches have the same rank. This statement is the most that have addressed the issue before us:
"Let there be in this two churches, one and the same with Pope Paul VI at the head of one and the other, we do not say anything, we did not invent it, we find that it is."
Gustave Corção in the journal Itinéraires November 1974, after the father Bruckberger in "L'Aurore" of March 18, 1976 have publicly remarked: the religious crisis is not like in the sixteenth century to have one church for two or three popes simultaneously; now is to have one potato two Churches, and the post-conciliar Catholic [...]
The modern world presents an opposite to the Great Schism show: two churches with one pope.
The most interesting text is the father Julio Meinvielle. Data 1970: the first text we know about this matter. Argentine priest wrote-and this is the conclusion of his masterful book "In the Kabbalah progressivism":
"A Pope preside both Churches, which would not be apparent externally but one. The Pope, with their ambiguous attitudes would lead to maintain the ambiguity. Because, on the one hand, professing an unblemished doctrine, would be the head of the Church of Promises. Moreover, producing misleading facts and even reprehensible, appear as encouraging subversion and keeping the Gnostic Church of Advertising. The ecclesiology has not sufficiently explored the possibility of a hypothesis as proposed here. But if you think about it, the promise of assistance from the Church is reduced to assistance prevent error introduced into the Roman Chair and the Church, and also that the Church will not disappear or be destroyed by their enemies. "
Our Lord has promised that the gates of hell-the infernal powers will never prevail against His Church. Therefore it is unfailing: she must continue to the end of time to propose to the souls of good will the means of salvation, namely sound doctrine, valid sacraments, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, an authentic spiritual life . This implies that the Catholic hierarchy will last until the end of the world and may- at least for those who truly wish, fulfill your role is to lead souls to heaven.
Moreover, Our Lord has also announced that his second coming would be preceded by a "tribulation such that not since the beginning of the world until now, and no other." (Mt. 24:21) This tribulation will be accompanied by a decline of faith to the point that our Lord still wondering if he would find faith on earth at the time of his second coming (Luke. 18.8) This apostasy is foretold by St. Paul (II Thess. 3.4) and Thomas Aquino commenting on this verse explains that Christians emancipate peoples of faith of the Roman Church. This suggests either that a good part of the hierarchy will be unfaithful to its mission.
In the period preceding the coming of the Lord, sun and moon are not illuminate more (18.8 Mt), which, in the symbolic sense, it means that the Church and Christian society lose their influence.
ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS.
We can now answer the objections against the possibility of a single hierarchy for the two "Churches".
'The error of the first objection is to imagine the church as a society reconcile formally imposed schism or heresy, as an orthodox church or a Protestant communion. If I join the Anglican Church, for example, I am formally schismatic, ie heretic and no longer formed part of the Catholic Church.
But I can be reconciled, that is, for simplicity, ecumenista- preserving the Catholic faith. No doubt I put my faith and that of others, in danger. But I do not abjure her right away.
That's why the members of the hierarchy, from the time they do not take their mistakes to the point of denying the Catholic faith, remain members of the Catholic hierarchy, even when they are council.
What we give to the objector, is that the bishops of Tradition are not part of the Conciliar Church.
Contrary to the finding of the second objection , the conciliar bishops and bishops of Tradition not two hierarchies. Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate bishops on June 30, 1988, protested against the idea of another hierarchy. No more than a hierarchy, with the pope at its head and under it all the Catholic bishops (including the Tradition).
When a priest celebrates Mass Tradition, named in the charge to the members of the hierarchy: the pope and the bishop.
What gives a semblance of truth to the objection is that the current pope and very often bishops act as representatives of the Conciliar Church: in this quality, when promoting the new sacraments, new catechism good Catholics etc. rightly do not obey.
'As to the third objection , this rests on gratuitous statements, as we have explained many times in this magazine. No one has ever made ??the decisive proof that the pope is not pope, or that the current bishops are consecrated with an invalid rite. There you have them, for lack of evidence to the contrary by representatives of the hierarchy, resistiéndoles when using their position to impose the conciliar errors.
ANNEX ON THE CHURCH CONCILIAR
Sometime after receiving the letter of Archbishop Benelli, July 29, Archbishop Lefebvre also commented this expression of "conciliar church":
"Nothing more clearly! From now on, the Conciliar Church is the one to obey and be faithful, not the Catholic Church. Everything That is precisely our problem. Divinis We are suspended by the conciliar church, and reconciled to the church, which we want no part of. This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church forever. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship and condemned by the Church in repeated official and definitive documents. That's why the founders of the church reconcile both insist on obedience today, disregarding the Church yesterday, as if she no longer existed.
(...) The church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is not, therefore, Catholic. As the pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church of today is not the true Church but to the extent that she continue in unity with the Church of yesterday and forever. The rule of the Catholic faith is the tradition. "
Other quotes of Monsignor Lefebvre:
"This council was born a new reformed church the same Archbishop Benelli called the Conciliar Church.
It is very easy to think that anyone who opposes the council, his new gospel, will be considered outside the communion of the Church. We can ask what church? They say to the Conciliar Church. (I accuse the Council, page 7.)
This council represents, both in the eyes of the Roman authorities as ours, a new church they call "conciliar church". (...)
All we cooperate in implementing this change, accept and adhere to this new conciliar church, appointed as Archbishop Benelli in the letter sent to me from the Holy Father, June 25 (1976), enter the schism " (A Bishop Speaks, p. 97 and 98).
"The New Mass, as the new Conciliar Church is and profound break with the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.'s A more Protestant than Catholic conception that explains everything that is unduly exalted and all that has been dropped (...) The liturgical reform Protestant style is one of the biggest mistakes of the Conciliar Church and one of the most ruinous of faith and grace " (Open Letter to the Pope, Supplement No 37 of fideliter, January-February 1984 p.10).
"Catholics who wonder the new language used by the Conciliar Church, have the advantage of knowing that this is not new, that Lamennais, Fuchs, Loisy used it for a century, and that they did nothing but collect all errors that ran in the course of the centuries " (Open Letter to the Perplexed Catholics, chap. 16).
"Cardinal Ratzinger strives once more dogmatic Vatican II. We are dealing with people who have no notion of Truth. We will be increasingly forced to act considering the new conciliar church as no longer Catholic" (Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre Jean Madiran, on January 29, 1986).
"Louis Veuillot said:" Two powers are at war and live in the world: The Revelation and Revolution "..'ve Chosen to preserve the revelation while reconciling the church chose the Revolution The reason for our twenty years of combat is in this election" (Ecône Conference in September 1986, fideliter 55, p. 18).
"How is this spirit of liberal dialogue that is instilled from the council to the priests and missionaries, we understand why the Conciliar Church has completely lost its missionary zeal, the spirit of the Church" (You have been dethroned, p. 104).
(...) "Hoping that you can fulfill my desire to destroy a journal that errors of the church council and reconcile increasingly openly professed by the pope and the Roman curia, exposing the Catholic doctrine. Now faced with the murderers of the Catholic faith, without shame " (Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre's father prior Avrillé, January 7, 1991).
Let's end with an excerpt from the sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre on June 30, 1988, at the consecration of the four bishops:
"I think your applause of a few moments ago was a spiritual manifestation that your joy for having translated the Catholic priests and bishops in order to save your souls, give your souls to the life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the doctrine, the sacraments, faith and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Life of Our Lord, of that you need to go to Heaven, is disappearing everywhere in the Conciliar Church. still some roads that are not roads Catholics. simply lead to apostasy (...).
If I am in error, if I teach errors, it is clear that I should bring back to the truth, according to those who sent me this protocol to be signed I recognize my mistakes. As if I were told: if you recognize their mistakes, we help to return to the truth. What truth is this, they say, but the truth of Vatican II, the Church reconcile this truth? It is therefore true that the Vatican the only truth that exists today is to reconcile the truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is true today. And that we do not want for anything. "
Archbishop Lefebvre was not alone in using this expression. The Calmel Father, in 1971, spoke of the false post-Vatican II church.
"The false church we see the curious among us since Vatican II, departs substantially from year to year, the Church founded by Jesus Christ. False post-conciliar church is divided more and more of the Holy Church to save souls for twenty centuries. Pseudo-church construction is divided increasingly true Church, the only Church of Christ, by the strangest innovations, both in the hierarchical constitution and moral teaching. "
Under similar expressions, we find the same notion Gustave Corção in 1974 and 1978:
"This disorder in Christianity, every day is amplified, and leaves us in a unique position in history after the Holy Nativity of Our Lord: we no longer know where our church by visible signs, we an idea of ??nightmare: the modern world presents an opposite to the Great Schism of the West show: two churches with one potato.
My firm and tenacious conviction, held many times here and elsewhere, is that between professed Catholicism some years throughout the Catholic world and the religion to openly imposed century as "new", "progressive", "evolutionary" there is a species difference or difference by otherness. We currently have two churches, governed and served by the same hierarchy of the Catholic Church and the other always.
Note well, dear reader, that when I give this "other" the name of post-conciliar church is not in any way to imply in spirits the unfortunate idea that after the Council the Church of Jesus Christ became the point of being unrecognizable or that the faithful of good Catholic doctrine pure discipline must be submitted by this new form of the visible Church, in which most of his preaching and teaching is radically new foreign and sometimes opposed to Catholic doctrine. No. The Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church continues to exist in the world after the council sorely tried, but always faithful in preserving the sacred deposit.
If the reader asks me some essential differences that separate these two religions, I answer: a difference of spirit, a difference of doctrine, a difference of a difference of religion and morality. How did I come to such a dreadful forjarme conviction? Well, as all Catholics to share with me for years of suffering and reflection. We confront the new texts, new addresses, new pastoral publications to the doctrine taught ... antier first. Starting with the texts emerging from the upper echelons, whose painful examination forces us to conclude that they are inspired by another spirit and another rooted in doctrine. "
In 1976, in the Supplement-Voltigeur journal Itinéraires, Jean Madiran wrote:
"NOT WHAT CHURCH?
In his speech to the consistory of 24 May (1976), where he was appointed Archbishop Lefebvre often Paulo VI (...) accused of "get out of the Church."
But out which Church? Two. And Paul VI has not resigned to be the Pope of these two churches simultaneously. In these conditions, "outside the Church" is misleading and does not settle anything.
That there are now two churches with one and the same Paul VI at the head of one and the other, did not invent it, we find that it is.
Some dioceses that are declared in communion with the pope, and the pope does not reject communion, objectively have left the Catholic communion (...) Yes, but faithless deserters, impostors, Paul saw his head is still not disprove or correct, preserves in their communion, he presides over this church also (...).
If the council has been consistently interpreted as it has been, it is with the asset or liability of the bishops in communion with the pope's consent. So a church reconcile different from the Catholic Church was established. (...)
There are two churches under Paul VI. Not see that they are two, or not see that are completely different from one another, or not see that Paul VI until now presides over and over, is blindness, and in some cases may be an invincible blindness. But having seen it and not say it would be the complicity of silence and a monstrous anomaly.
Gustave Corção in the journal Itinéraires November 1974, after the Father Bruckberger in L'Aurore of March 18, 1976, publicly expressed it: The religious crisis is not like in the sixteenth century, when it was one church and two had or three popes simultaneously: Today is take one potato two churches, Catholic and post-conciliar "(...)
Father Meinvielle in 1970, spoke of the Church of advertising to describe what we call the Conciliar Church: but it aptly describes the current situation of a single hierarchy ruling two churches:
Non Possumus"It takes no great acumen to see that for five centuries the world is shaping the Kabbalistic tradition-The world of Antichrist comes on quickly. Attends All totalitarian unification of the son of perdition. Hence also the success of progressivism . secularized Christianity or ateíza.
How have turned in this Kabbalistic old aid promises of the Divine Spirit to the Church and how you have to check the non prevalebunt portae in feri, the gates of hell will not have to prevail, there is in the human mind. But as the Church began as a tiny seed (1), and tree leafy tree was made ??and can be reduced in its lushness and have a reality much more modest. know that mysterium iniquiatis is already at work (2), but we do not know the limits of his power, however, there is no difficulty in admitting that the Church of advertising can be won by the enemy and become Catholic Church in Gnostic Church.. There may be two churches, one the advertising, propaganda magnified Church, bishops, priests and theologians publicized, and even with a Pope ambiguous attitudes; and other Church silent, Papa faithful to Jesus Christ in his teaching and some priests, bishops and faithful who are addicted, scattered like "pusillus grex" throughout the land. The second would be the Church of the promises, not that first, I could deserting. A Pope preside both Churches, which would not be apparent externally but one. The Pope, with his ambiguous attitudes would lead to maintain the ambiguity. Because, on the one hand, professing an unblemished doctrine would be head of the Church of Promises. On the other hand., Producing misleading facts and even reprehensible, horn appear encouraging subversion and keeping the Gnostic Church of Advertising.
ecclesiology has not sufficiently explored the possibility of a hypothesis as to propose here. But if you think about it, the Pledge of church attendance is reduced to a support that prevents error introduced into the Roman Chair and the Church, and also that the Church will not disappear or be destroyed by its enemies. "
See also: Priestly UNION SURGE MARCEL LEFEBVRE!