Pro Tridentina (Malta)

For the promotion and dissemination of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in the Archdiocese of Malta and the Diocese of Gozo, as endorsed by the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI (2007) and in the Instruction Universae Ecclesiae (2011). We adhere to the traditional Catholic motto: We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed. We worship as you once worshipped. If you were right then, we are right now. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

Showing posts with label Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre. Show all posts

Sunday, January 26, 2025

BREAKING NEWS: Bishop Richard Williamson dying

Dear members and friends of Pro Tridentina (Malta),

We kindly ask you to pray for Bishop Richard Williamson, formerly of SSPX.

Although His Excellency Bishop Williamson reportedly passed away yesterday, after suffering a brain haemorrhage, we have yet to confirm this report. A former official of the organisation is currently in touch with the Bishop's entourage. This person knew the Bishop and was involved in the organisation of the Bishop's visit to Malta in 2013.

Disagreements notwithstanding, he is a man of great faith and intellect and was always more than charitable in his approach, even to those with whom he disagreed. He has devoted his life to the service of Christ's Church, was ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and has fought tirelessly for the restoration of Christ's Church and the proclamation of the social Kingship of Jesus Christ. He is a loyal son of the Church.

In your charity, please pray for His Excellency, and if it is true that he has passed away, let us pray for the repose of his soul.

Damian Vella

President, Pro Tridentina (Malta)

Monday, October 30, 2023

A life for Christ the King: Archbishop Lefebvre

First published in the October 2011 issue of The Angelus magazine.

Archbishop Lefebvre: A Life for Christ the King

Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

Archbishop Lefebvre always linked the priesthood to the social reign of our Lord Jesus Christ: the one is source of the other; the other spontaneously flows from the first.

I. At the French  Seminary in Rome

On the Via Santa Chiara, where he trained for the priesthood from 1923 to 1929, Fr. Lefebvre learned from Fr. Henri Le Floch, the Father Superior of the house, not to separate what should be joined: the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and His social reign, a priest’s doctrine and his piety, and also the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the social reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the teaching of the popes in their encyclicals.

Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI are the masters, and also Cardinal Pie, Louis Veuillot, and so on. But the Fathers of the seminary were also well-beloved masters to whom they listened.

Fr. Le Floch

According to Archbishop Lefebvre:

Fr. Le Floch made us enter into and live the history of the Church, this fight that the perverse powers take to our Lord. We were mobilized against this dreadful liberalism, against the Revolution and the forces of evil which were trying to overcome the Church, the reign of our Lord, the Catholic States, and the whole of Christianity."[1]

This conflict imposed a personal choice on every seminarian: "We had to choose: we had to leave the seminary if we didn’t agree, or else join in the fight." But taking up the fight meant taking it up for one’s whole life: "I think that our whole life as priests—or as bishops—has been marked by this fight against liberalism."[2]

But how does the priesthood fit into this essentially political combat?

At the French Seminary, the seminarians had to read or had read to them the writings of Godefroid Kurth [The Origins of Modern Civilization, 1912] to make them consider how

the mystical Body of Christ transformed the pagan society of imperial Rome and prepared the growing movement that recognized the plans for society of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and King";

the seminarians also learned through the writings of Fr. Deschamps [in his book Secret Societies and Society] that

revolutions caused the exclusion of Christ the King from government with the final goal of eliminating the Mass and the supernatural life of Christ the sovereign High Priest."[3]

Fr. (and later Cardinal) Billot’s De Ecclesia made them grasp “the sense of the royalty of Christ and the horror of liberalism.” Through the works of Cardinal Pie they learned

the full meaning of ‘thy kingdom come,’ namely, that Our Lord’s kingdom must come not only in individual souls and in heaven, but also on earth by the submission of States and nations to His rule. The dethroning of God on earth is a crime to which we must never resign ourselves" (Fr. Fahey).[4]

[Fr. Fahey was a seminarian in Rome 12 years before Marcel Lefebvre. He attended the same seminary, which was also under Fr. Le Floch’s direction.] “Pius IX’s Syllabus and the encyclicals of the last four popes,” said Fahey, “have been the principal object of my meditations on the royalty of Christ and its relation to the priesthood.”[5]

What a surprising meditation subject for a young seminarian: joining the highest spirituality with the submission of the temporal order to Christ. For Marcel Lefebvre’s teachers, there was no divorce between individual life and political action in the broadest sense. So-called “Catholic” liberalism separates what should remain united.

Fr. Voegtli

It was also at the French Seminary in Rome that Fr. Marc Voegtli, C.S.Sp., a professor at Santa Chiara, commented on Pius XI’s encyclical Quas Primas of December 11, 1925, on the social kingship of Jesus Christ. Before his enthusiastic young audience he set forth the political program of the Catholic Church by the action of the Catholic priest. We’ll explain at the end of this talk the political program in which the priest is engaged.

The testimony of Fr. Voegtli’s students is unanimous: His teaching was simple, he spoke only of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King…. He taught the integrity of the priesthood, the priesthood taken to its logical conclusion: the sacrifice of the priest [Keep that idea in mind] for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Everything was judged in that light. 'My dear friends,' the Father would say, 'you must preach Our Lord Jesus Christ with all your heart!'"

A collective testimony signed by twelve seminarians declares:

Through him [Fr. Voegtli] we learned to see our Lord Jesus Christ, the King, as the center of everything, the answer to all questions, our food, our thought, our life, everything…. That is what he wanted to impress upon us: that will remain!"[6]

And remain it did, as we shall see. Marcel Lefebvre was one of those who had an unforgettable memory of Fr. Voegtli’s conferences. You may be thinking, "Let’s get to his actions during the Council and after!" Yes, but it is essential to understand the mainspring of his action!

The mainspring of Archbishop Lefebvre’s fight for Christ the King:  a testimony

He essentially gave his own testimony to the fact: 50 years [after the 12 seminarians’ testimony] one of Fr. Voegtli’s rare faithful disciples, Marcel Lefebvre, also bore witness to the indelible impression produced by Fr. Voegtli’s “talks, which were very simple, taking the words of Scripture, showing who Our Lord Jesus Christ was…. That remained with us for life!”[7]

It even became the subject of the seminarian’s meditation:

We shall never have sufficiently meditated on, or sought to understand, what Our Lord Jesus Christ is…. He should rule our thinking, He makes us holy. He is also our Creator since nothing whatsoever was made without the Word, and therefore without Our Lord Jesus Christ who is the Word. So we must only think about and contemplate Our Lord Jesus Christ. And that transforms one’s life!"[8]

What a striking remark. For Marcel Lefebvre, belief in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and consequently His right alone to reign meant personally dedicating himself to the fight. This he did, like many of his confreres, at Rome before the Confession of St. Peter. There he made a private vow of doctrinal and militant “Romanity.” The account of the Fr. Berto suggests that making such a vow was normal and went without saying. The seminarian promised “to be constantly on crusade” (Archbishop Lefebvre).[9]

He didn’t know when or where or in what troubled, tragic circumstances of the Church it would be that he would have to enter the arena and himself write a page of that Church history that he was shown under the light of Christ the King, but he knew that he would have to join in the battle.

The Second Vatican Council was to be the providential moment for Archbishop Lefebvre, the moment when he felt himself pushed to intervene in fidelity to the promise he had made as a seminarian at Rome long before.

II. Herald of Christ the King

During the Council, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre became the head of the resistance against false religious freedom in the name of Christ the King. During the presentation of two rival drafts on religious freedom, one by Cardinal Bea and one by Cardinal Ottaviani, at the last meeting of the Central Preparatory Commission in June 1962, he gave his opinion.

About the liberal schema of Cardinal Bea, he said:

On Religious Liberty: non placet… since it is based on false principles solemnly condemned by the sovereign pontiffs, for example Pius IX, who calls this error "delirium" (Denzinger 1690)…. The schema on religious liberty does not preach Christ and therefore seems false…."

About the Catholic schema of Cardinal Ottaviani, he said:

‘On the Church’: placet. However, the exposition of the fundamental principles could be done with more reference to Christ the King as in the encyclical Quas Primas…. Our Council could have as its aim to preach Christ to all men, and to state that it belongs to the Catholic Church alone to be the true preacher of Christ who is the salvation and life of individuals, families, professional associations, and of other civil bodies.

…The Theological Commission’s schema expounds the authentic doctrine but does so like a thesis; it does not sufficiently show the aim of this doctrine which is nothing other than the reign of Christ…. From the point of view of Christ as source of salvation and life, all the fundamental truths could be expounded as they say “pastorally,” and in this way the errors of secularism, naturalism, and materialism, etc., would be excluded."[10]

III. Theological adversary  of the secular state

The Declaration on Religious Freedom promulgated by the Council on December 7, 1965, Dignitatis Humanae, seems to assert that the State must recognize the Catholic religion as the one true one (DH 1), but at the same time it teaches the “natural” freedom of the adherents of false cults to practice their beliefs publicly (DH 6). This contradiction became more problematic after the Council from the way the Holy See required its application by States that were still officially Catholic: the article in their constitutions professing the Catholic religion as the State religion had to be expunged.

So, while passing through Colombia, South America, soon after the suppression of the “Catholic religion” as “that of the nation,” Archbishop Lefebvre remarked that “the speech of the president of the Republic is more Catholic than the Nuncio’s.” The Archbishop was indignant that Ireland had agreed to replace the expression “the special position of the holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church as guardian of the faith professed by the great majority of its citizens,” with “the homage of public worship” given by the State “to Almighty God.”

In Italy, Article 1 of the Lateran Accords of February 11, 1929, read:

Italy recognizes and reaffirms the principle expressed by Article 1 of the Statute of the Realm of March 4, 1848, by which the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion is the only religion of the State."[11]

In 1984, to the consternation of Archbishop Lefebvre, the new concordat between the Holy See and Italy only recognized that “the principles of Catholicism constitute part of the historical patrimony of the Italian people.” In 1977 [7 years before the 1984 concordat], Cardinal Giovanni Colombo, the Archbishop of Milan, had declared: "o stato non puo essere che laico.—The State can only be secular. He explained:

The Church does not ask for privileges, but for genuine freedom…. In the current historical development of society, a confessional State is not possible: not only a confessional Christian State, but also a confessional Marxist atheistic State or a confessional radical bourgeois State. We are calling for a State that does not embrace any particular ideology, that does not impose the dogmas of any culture, and that does not identify with any party. Otherwise, very many of its citizens, because of their religious or ideological or partisan choices, would be compelled to feel like strangers in their own land."[12]

In terms that are insulting to the Church of Christ thus put on a par with ideologies, parties, and cultures, the Cardinal could not better express the current interpretation given to Dignitatis Humanae as propounding the agnostic and indifferentist State. The State’s pledge of allegiance to Jesus Christ, God Incarnate and the one true God, would amount to uncharitableness, contempt for human dignity, and unfair discrimination.

Archbishop Lefebvre spoke out against these liberal platitudes in an interview with the three cardinals who questioned him in 1975. “The goal of the secularization of the State,” he said, “is nothing other than the goal of the devil, who is behind Freemasonry: the destruction of the Catholic Church by affording all the false religions freedom of speech and by forbidding the State to work for the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The archbishop explained what he meant: First of all, the recognition of Christ by the State is not a privilege; it is the right of the Man-God and Redeemer of the human race. On the other hand, “How many Catholics are still able to recognize that the work of our Lord’s Redemption must also be accomplished through civil society?” And yet this is so, for “everything was made for our Lord Jesus Christ,” as St. Paul teaches (Col. 1:16).[13]

Man has but one ultimate goal: eternal salvation. The Church works directly toward this goal, but the State should also work towards it, although indirectly, for civil society is also a creature of our Lord Jesus Christ.[14] Consequently, as St. Pius X teaches, the State has as its “ultimate object …man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course.”[15]

This… is founded on the dogmatic reason and on the experience of the conversion of numerous nations subsequent to the conversion of their rulers: for example, Clovis, Ethelbert, and so on. This fact prompted St. Alphonsus Liguori to declare: “If I convert a king, I do more for the Catholic cause than hundreds of missionaries.”

Archbishop Lefebvre also held the supernatural and traditional position of the Church on Christ the King—namely, that the State should be an instrument in the work of Redemption. He is not far from taking as his own the program of his brother in religion and co-alumnus of Santa Chiara, Denis Fahey: since the reign of Christ must be established by the cross (“Regnavit a ligno Deus” we sing in the Vexilla Regis):

In order to favor union with Christ as Priest in Holy Mass, God wants the world organized under Christ as King."[16]

From this it follows that:

At Holy Mass all the members of Christ express their determination to work for the integral establishment of the rights of God and of Christ the King over the world."[17]

More briefly, Archbishop Lefebvre would often say: “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the expression of the kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

At the French Seminary in Rome, Fr. Marc Voegtli, following the teaching of Fr. Deschamps, taught the young Marcel Lefebvre the liberal, Freemasonic agenda in three points:

The banishment of Christ the King from government by the secularization of the State;
eliminating the Mass which would result from the persecution of the Church by legal means, and ultimately the secularization of the Church itself, the supreme plot of initiated Masons; in order
finally to suppress the grace of Jesus Christ High Priest in souls—the very secularization of Catholic souls. All of this happened after the Second Vatican Council…

What Archbishop Lefebvre did is reverse this satanic program in order to come up with the Catholic program, which is that of the Society of St. Pius X, also in three points:

Restore to the faithful the Mass—the true Mass, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass—which is the source and expression of the reign of Jesus Christ.
By the grace of the Mass, form an elite of faithful Catholics living in the state of grace; and
through the work of this elite in public institutions—not just in ecclesiastical organizations, but also in openly Catholic civil organizations—re-crown our Lord Jesus Christ in society: “Omnia instaurare in Christo—Establish all things in Christ,” according to the motto of St. Pius X.

This is the program Archbishop Lefebvre tried to explain to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Benedict XVI, in a meeting they had in Rome on July 14, 1987:

Eminence… you are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything, He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But You! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society.

For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything!"[18]

Wednesday, September 27, 2023

Traditionis custodes & Desiderio desideravi - the soon-to-be abolished Tridentine Mass in Malta

With the death of Benedict XVI at the end of 2022, it became known how painful it was for the late Pope the publication of Traditionis custodes (16 July 2021) as well as Desiderio desideravi (29 June 2022). In the latter document, Pope Francis called on Catholics to overcome forms of aestheticism that appreciate only outward formality or allow sloppiness in liturgy, noting that “a celebration that does not evangelize is not authentic.”

The Pope’s Apostolic Letter reaffirms the importance of ecclesial communion around the Novus Ordo Missae to the detriment of other valid Catholic rites. Below are some pertinent points from it:

Recalling the importance of Vatican II’s constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium the Pope adds, ”I want the beauty of the Christian celebration and its necessary consequences for the life of the Church not to be spoiled by a superficial and foreshortened understanding of its value or, worse yet, by its being exploited in service of some ideological vision, no matter what the hue” (16).
After warning against “spiritual worldliness” and the Gnosticism and neo-Pelagianism that fuel it, Pope Francis explains that “Participating in the Eucharistic sacrifice is not our own achievement, as if because of it we could boast before God or before our brothers and sisters” and that “the Liturgy has nothing to do with an ascetical moralism. It is the gift of the Paschal Mystery of the Lord which, received with docility, makes our life new. The cenacle is not entered except through the power of attraction of his desire to eat the Passover with us” (20).
To heal from spiritual worldliness, we need to rediscover the beauty of the liturgy, but this rediscovery “is not the search for a ritual aesthetic which is content by only a careful exterior observance of a rite or is satisfied by a scrupulous observance of the rubrics. Obviously, what I am saying here does not wish in any way to approve the opposite attitude, which confuses simplicity with a careless banality, or what is essential with an ignorant superficiality, or the concreteness of ritual action with an exasperating practical functionalism” (22).
He writes that “it would be trivial to read the tensions, unfortunately present around the celebration, as a simple divergence between different tastes concerning a particular ritual form. The problematic is primarily ecclesiological.” (31)
The Pope points out he does not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council, and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium.
“A liturgical-sapiential plan of studies in the theological formation of seminaries would certainly have positive effects in pastoral action. There is no aspect of ecclesial life that does not find its summit and its source in the Liturgy. More than being the result of elaborate programs, a comprehensive, organic, and integrated pastoral practice is the consequence of placing the Sunday Eucharist, the foundation of communion, at the centre of the life of the community. The theological understanding of the Liturgy does not in any way permit that these words be understood to mean to reduce everything to the aspect of worship. A celebration that does not evangelize is not authentic, just as a proclamation that does not lead to an encounter with the risen Lord in the celebration is not authentic. And then both of these, without the testimony of charity, are like sounding a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (37).
“Among the ritual acts that belong to the whole assembly, silence occupies a place of absolute importance” which “moves to sorrow for sin and the desire for conversion. It awakens a readiness to hear the Word and awakens prayer. It disposes us to adore the Body and Blood of Christ” (52).
Pope Francis asks “all bishops, priests, and deacons, the formators in seminaries, the instructors in theological faculties and schools of theology, and all catechists to help the holy people of God to draw from what is the first wellspring of Christian spirituality,” reaffirming what is established in Traditionis custodes so that “the Church may lift up, in the variety of so many languages, one and the same prayer capable of expressing her unity,” and this single prayer is the Roman Rite that resulted from the conciliar reform and was established by the saintly pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II.
Let us recall that in an interview a couple of days after Benedict XVI's death, Archbishop Gänswein admitted the following:

Interviewer: So, Pope Benedict’s lifting of restrictions on celebrating the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite according to the 1962 Missal did not last as long as he intended. As Pope Emeritus, he was around to see the promulgation of Pope Francis’ motu proprio Traditionis Custodes. Was he disappointed?

Archbishop Gänswein: It hit him pretty hard. I believe it broke Pope Benedict’s heart to read the new motu proprio, because his intention had been to help those who simply found a home in the Missale Vetustum — to find inner peace, to find liturgical peace — in order to draw them away from Marcel Lefebvre. And if you think about how many centuries the old Mass was the source of spiritual life and nourishment for many people including many saints, it’s impossible to imagine that it no longer has anything to offer. And let’s not forget that many young people — who were born long after the Second Vatican Council, and who don’t really grasp all the drama surrounding that council — that these young people, knowing the new Mass, have nevertheless found a spiritual home, a spiritual treasure in the old Mass as well. To take this treasure away from people … well, I can’t say that I’m comfortable with that.

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

FIUV Heroes (1): Elisabeth de Saventhem

We intend to start a series of laypeople who contributed a lot to the aims of the Traditional Latin Mass. We start with an article about Elisabeth de Saventhem who died 22 years ago this month. She was the wife of the first President of FIUV. The article was written some time after her death by the second President of FIUV, the late Michael Davies.

(We are most grateful to all those who contributed to the completion and translation of this text)

Elisabeth de Saventhem was born in Bremen in 1911 as the eldest of seven children, five daughters and two sons, to Walther Clemens, Reichsgraf von Plettenberg-Lenhausen and his wife, Carmen Guillermina.  Her spiritual formation was strongly influenced by an aunt, and her father's cousin was Blessèd Maria Droste zu Vischering of the Divine Heart, who had entered the Order of the Good Shepherd in Munster in 1885.

The economic crisis in Germany forced Elisabeth to give up her language studies (French and Russian) in Leipzig and she found work in an office in Berlin, quickly being promoted to senior secretary and purchasing manager (the company produced silk for parachutes).

The publication, in March 1937, of Pius XI's Encyclica Mit brennender Sorge saw the first public confrontations between the National-socialist regime and the Catholic Church.  Contrary to the concordat which had been signed four years before, the government forbade any distribution of the Pope's text.  Nevertheless it was copied and circulated by the Plettenberg family and Elisabeth's parents were arrested and imprisoned in Bremen, accused of "malicious gossip endangering the State".  Elisabeth, as eldest child, undertook successfully the defence of her parents before the minions of the Gestapo, so that they were released three weeks later.  The Gestapo in Berlin continued to keep an eye on this courageous daughter and shortly afterwards, following a series of anonymous letters accusing Elisabeth herself of spying, they tried to incriminate her - after more than 20 cross-examinations.  The efforts came to nothing of course, for the whole scandal had come from the unfounded, sickly jealousy of the wife of Elisabeth's employer.  The affair reached the highest levels of the Gestapo and came to a conclusion only in December 1938 with Elisabeth's brilliant rehabilitation by the regular courts.

During these years Elisabeth was much sought after in Berlin society.  She impressed those who met her not only by her beauty, her great intelligence, her natural charm and her "Catholic at its best" humour, but also because of her extraordinary ability to listen.  She understood especially how to recognise the problems lying deeper than the questions actually raised, and would then reply with great conceptual precision.  Behind this unusual ability lay a faith matured by interior struggles, paired with the fruit of superb religious teaching which Elisabeth had received at school from a gifted priest, Pastor Franz Moschner.  Later, at his request, she translated Moschner's most important book "Christliches Gebetsleben" into English.  The MS was published in 1962 as "Christian Prayer" by Herder Book Co in the USA.

Elisabeth's knowledge of doctrine and theology was so extensive and sound that her bishop authorised her to instruct and prepare converts for reception.  The time that she devoted to this instruction, and she had many pupils, was never less than a year.    She once remarked that although God had not blessed her with children of her own, she considered these converts to be her children.

The fact that Elisabeth  believed in God  as the "iustus iudex"  (the « just judge ») , to whom,  throughout her life, she would address the question of the meaning or unavoidability of suffering and death, lent to her own witness that convincing, many-layered depth which rendered silent every sceptic.

It was during the Berlin years that the momentous meeting with Isa Vermehren and her younger brother Eric took place, as they sought the Truth, which led to their conversions in 1938 and 1939 respectively.  Early in 1939 Elisabeth returned to Bremen to help look after her youngest brother and sister, and in March 1941 she became engaged to Eric Vermehren.  A few weeks later, Elisabeth's eldest brother was killed in Russia whilst carrying a badly-injured soldier from his company back to their trenches.  Elisabeth's parents persuaded the young couple not to wait until the year of mourning was over and so, in October 1941, they were married quietly in the presence of the closest family members, at Schloss Hovestadt, the Plettenberg family seat.

Because of a childhood injury, Eric was exempt from frontline service and served at first as a "Welfare Officer" in several camps for English and French prisoners of war.  In 1942 he was transferred to the Intelligence Service and sent to Istanbul as aide to the German military attaché there.  In this position he became aware, through freely available neutral reports, of the true extent of the dreadful deeds being done, especially in the occupied areas about which scarcely anything was known back in Germany.  This knowledge made him realise that, even as a subordinate,  his conscience would not allow him to serve the régime any longer.  During his first home leave in December 1943, Eric informed Elisabeth of his decision,  She was immediately ready to follow him into foreign exile.  In January 1944 they were "kidnapped" by the English Secret Services, in an action organised in the hope of protecting their families back in Germany.  English officers accompanied them via Izmir and Aleppo to Cairo and thence, via Gibraltar, to England.

The British Foreign Office had at that time adopted the Morgenthau-Plan.  Eric and Elisabeth tried, in many letters and interviews, to impress on the Foreign Office the advisability of allowing leading members of the inner German Opposition to help with the rebuilding of their ruined country, but to no avail.  They then asked that their status as "Guests of the Foreign Office" be annulled and they began to earn an independent living as assistant teachers in Worth Priory, a Benedictine preparatory school.  Elisabeth straightaway won the hearts of her pupils, despite, or perhaps precisely because of her original strictness in questions of discipline.   Among the anecdotes that she would relate of her time at Worth was that of finding one of her eight year old pupils crying bitterly one day.  She asked him the reason and he explained that it was because he liked her very much, so much in fact that he felt that she deserved to be English, and it was unfair that she was not.

For an "ex-enemy alien" it was well-nigh impossible to find a decent job in post-war England.  Eric founded a small export company  and Elisabeth helped in this effort despite her delicate health.  The early (unfortunately not long-lasting) success  of the company allowed them to leave Worth and move to the shadow of Brompton Oratory and a flat which was furnished with articles donated by friends.  Some five years passed before Eric found regular employment with a firm of Lloyds brokers.  He had by then adopted the surname Vermeeren de Saventhem, mainly for genealogical reasons.  In 1964 Eric became Director for Europe of the London firm.  The couple spent two years in Paris and in 1966 moved back to Switzerland, to settle in Clarens by Montreux.

From the moment that  Pope John XXIII's announced that he was con]vening a General Council of the Church,  all eyes were fixed upon that spectacular event - those of the de Saventhems with growing concern.  Elisabeth's religious life had always had its focus in Holy Mass which she attended daily with her husband.  In the accomplishment of the Sacrifice of the Mass she saw the definitive identity of the true Church of Christ and at the same time the reason for and the justification of the Catholic priesthood.  She knew - with all the Tradition of the Church - of the essential connexion between the Faith of the Church and its prayers:  as the Church prays, so it believes.  Thus it seemed to her presumptuous, nay dangerous, to question, even in Council, those forms of liturgy which have grown and proved themselves over the centuries.  The maintenance of the Mass as codified by St Pius V "with equal rights and equal honour" alongside any new forms became the main theme of her prayer, her thought and her actions, in close co-operation  with her husband, long-time President of the international Una Voce movement.

A first meeting with Monseigneur Lefebvre in Rome in 1962 sowed the seeds for over 25 years of cooperation, particularly vis-à-vis the Holy See.  This became intensified after the foundation of the Archbishop’s  International Seminary in Ecône, an hour's drive away from Clarens.  The Archbishop appreciated more than anything Elisabeth's ever acute sensus fidei et ecclesiae and her moral courage.  For over ten years the de Saventhems daily made the long drive from Clarens to Ecône to attend early Mass.  Later they were able to continue daily Mass attendance at a chapel in Lausanne and at the tiny Carmel of Marie Reine des Anges,  both served by priests from Ecône priests. The latter was situated on the slopes of the aptly-named Mont-Pèlerin just a short drive from home.

Elisabeth's life was filled with conscious and radiant gratitude towards the Church for the gift of faith.  It was however permanently overshadowed by a never-ending chain of physical suffering.  She accepted this with admirable discipline from her iron will which seemed to gain new strength at Mass each morning.

The end was not easy.  As the petals begin to curl inwards when a precious flower fades, so Elisabeth's mental elasticity, which had always been admired by all who met her, slowly diminished.  The interest was there, but ever more frequently the helpful replies did not  come.  Her physical frailty increased visibly, and for her  last journey from Switzerland to Bonn (the newly-chosen home, to be near the family again) a flying ambulance was necessary.  Elisabeth died a few weeks later in Cologne, in her sister's house, surrounded and comforted by the deep love of her husband and the devoted care of her sister and family. R.I.P.

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Quotes to reflect upon (22)

“The future looks dark for you. Your interior struggle for true perception and the way to take in the confusion is known to me. And so I shall enlighten you. My faithful son Marcel (Archbishop Lefebvre), who suffers a great deal for the faith, is going on the right path. He is like a light and pillar of truth, which many ordained priests of mine are betraying. Faith is greater than obedience. Therefore it is my will that the work of theological education for priests continues in the spirit and will of my son Marcel, for the salvation and great help of my one and true Church.

“The spirit of the world has infiltrated the Church, and the Spirit of God has abandoned many hearts who were called to proclaim His Spirit. They talk about other things and lose themselves in the tricks and snares of Satan. And thus they corrupt the people and even the children ( . . . ) This spirit has penetrated the ecclesiastics and monasteries and convents, because the monks and nuns have lost and deserted the spirit of the Founders of their Orders. They have become a scandal for the people and the world. They have lost not only love towards My most holy Mother, but also reverence towards My sacramental presence. Instead the monks preach about things of the world, of luxury, of a life of pleasure, and the nuns do not talk about the holy angels, and many not even about the most holy Virgin and Mother Mary. Still, places do exist of quiet and of prayer, special shrines in which Mary, My Mother and the Mother of grace, is honoured.”

The quote above refers to the message of 5 March 1976, from Our Lord. From 1922, Jesus appeared with a message on every First Friday of the month to Fr. Albert Drexel (1889–1977), a prestigious professor of philology from the Vorarlberg in Austria and a devout Catholic priest. WARNING: No Catholic is obliged to believe that these are the words of Our Lord Himself.

Monday, November 25, 2019

Quotes to reflect upon (20)

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechists; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

“But though we,” says St. Paul, “or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.

It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.

That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.

That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.

By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

21 November, 1974

Ecône, Switzerland

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Important Exorcisms - Part 2

Today we will continue this interesting series about exorcisms that took place on a woman in Switzerland between 1975‑1978. Speaking through the possessed woman, the demons were forced to tell the truth by Our Lady under the Solemn Church Exorcism. The first part can be found here.

The text is of the exorcisms that took place on 17 August and 31 October 1975. (E stands for exorcist, J stands for Judas Iscariot, a human demon). They deal about Ecône (i.e. the Fraternity of Saint Pius X - SSPX), Pope Paul VI, the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass.

J: Ecône will triumph.

E: What is that you said? Repeat that, Judas Iscariot! Who were you speaking about? In the name of Jesus, repeat, it, tell the truth and nothing but the truth!

J: After a long struggle, Ecône will triumph.

E: Speak in the name of Jesus!

J: Ecône is on the unique good road.

E: Is that the truth? Is it Heaven who said that? Speak, in the name of Jesus!

J: When I say: the good road I do not wish to say that there is nobody else on the good road; but the road which Ecône follows is singularly good. That is what we mean. There are not many roads which are good, but there are many people who are on the good road. Ecône is on the good road and many people do not recognize Ecône are searching for the truth, and so they also are on the good road.

E: Continue, in the name..., say what you must say!

J: Archbishop Mgr. Lefebvre will still have a great deal to suffer, but he is good.

E: Continue, in the name... say what you must say.

E: Is the liturgy he follows good? Tell the truth, in the name of Jesus!

J: The liturgy he follows is the only good one.

E: Is this the truth, in the name of Jesus?

J: It is the complete truth.

E: In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, have you lied?

J: No! It is the complete truth.

E: Where does it come from? Who ordered you to say that? Speak, in the name...!

J: It is She (he points upward) who says it; it is Those up there Who say it. The truth comes from on High. They, up there, do not like the new liturgy. In any case, the old Missal did not need to be modified... I am saying all of this against my will (he cries and sighs). In today's times, one should not obey all the bishops any longer.

E: There are still some good bishops. Speak, in the name of..., nothing but the truth!

J: There are still some who should be obeyed, but not all! Akabor has spoken about that previously (he sighs and has difficulty breathing)

...

J: You must pray for the Pope. He is in a worse plight than a martyr. He would rather be stoned like Stephen. He is a great Pope although he is forced to remain silent. He carries a cross. Few achieve his eminence, although he appears to be small and powerless. In the beginning, he made some mistakes, which he realised a long time ago, and now his hands and feet are tied, even his tongue. He cries out to Heaven that he would like to restore the old liturgy, the Tridentine Mass: he would like...but his hands and feet are tied. He can do nothing.

E: Speak only the truth, on behalf of the Blessed Virgin! Tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, about the Church and about Pope Paul VI!

J: You can be sure that Pope, Paul VI would like to re-introduce the Tridentine Mass. Whenever you see on television, or have to see or read any part of these novelties, you can be certain that this does not come from him.

E: Tell the truth, in the name...!

...

J: On 14 August, Akabor was forced to speak about the Mass and the Asperges Me which should be re-introduced at the beginning of Mass. That is true, that is true; then, we are obliged to flee from the church.

E: Tell the truth, Judas Iscariot, tell the truth, on behalf of the Blessed Virgin!

J: Without it, we are in the church. It would be better if the priest were to start again sprinkling the people with holy water from the top to the bottom of the church, as used to be the custom. It would also make us flee from within the people.

E: Tell the truth, on behalf of the Blessed Virgin, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! J: Another of our tasks is to distract the congregation. When the priest goes through the church with the holy water, the people are able to pray better. Moreover, this also removes the ideas and powers of black magic.

E: On behalf of the Blessed Virgin, tell the truth!

J: The Asperges Me, the thirty-three signs of the cross, the recitation of “Oh Lord I am not worthy” three times, and finally, at the end of the Mass, the prayer “St. Michael the Archangel”, the three “Hail Mary's” and the “Hail Holy Queen” should all definitely be brought back. Their suppression is our work, and, one way or another, that of the cardinals who are in our power.

E: Continue to tell the truth, on behalf of the Blessed Virgin!

...

J: Furthermore, Those up there (he points upward) prefer the Tridentine Mass to the Mass in the vernacular and to the New Mass, because it cannot be translated exactly.

E: Do you mean the Tridentine Mass in Latin? Tell the truth, tell the truth. Judas Iscariot, nothing but the truth, on behalf of the Blessed Virgin!

J: The texts are difficult to translate into the vernacular. That is how those inexact words have come in - words which carry fewer blessings at Mass. Everything which is not said exactly as Christ wishes it, carries fewer blessings. This applies especially at the Consecration; the words of consecration must be pronounced in a perfectly correct way. Not one syllable should be changed. Everything must be done strictly correctly. Do you know how, in our place (Hell), everything is perfectly well-ordered? Even in the Catholic Church, things are no longer conducted in such an orderly fashion as they are where we come from.

E: Tell the truth, on behalf of the blessed Virgin, nothing but the truth!

...

J: If they had again the thirty-three signs of the cross, which, moreover, is in keeping with the Life of Christ and which was all worked out in advance - it was Jesus who organized that through the Holy Spirit; if they reestablished it (the Mass), from the Asperges Me right to the prayer “Saint Michael, Archangel”, and celebrated the Mass as Christ has wished, then...I don't want to say it.

E: Tell the truth, Judas Iscariot, by order of the Blessed Virgin. Lucifer, you have no right to disturb him! You must go away!

J: ...then, thousands of souls would be saved, who are not saved and who are going to their eternal destruction. The evil comes from the Mass, principally from the Mass. An endless flood of blessings used to flow from the Mass, when it was still celebrated properly. The Mass is the principal factor.

The Mass and Holy Communion are the two greatest things for you Catholics. All the mystics, all the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin must yield place to them. Holy Mass has an infinite value, an unimaginable value. Christ Himself goes up to the altar with all his plenitude of graces, which we hate so much. We must flee from a Mass that is still celebrated well. We have to flee at the very beginning, at the Asperges Me. Then, speaking figuratively, we can only watch, timidly, through a crack. Now, on the contrary, at the modern Mass, we can dance around, up to...I don't want to say it.