You Should Cover Up for
the Conciliar Popes & Archbishop Lefebvre
Objections | Comments | Questions | Home | Books | CDs | Search | Contact Us | Donate
Dear TIA staff,
Since my conversion to Roman Catholicism 1 1/2 years ago, I have been following your website with great interest. Especially your stories about the Holy Eucharist and the "Forgotten Truths" section are very edifying.
For the past months however, I have noticed that you take a strong interest in the abhorrent events that take place at Paul VI hall. The scandal those events cause are troubling to every traditional Catholic. Nonetheless, the great detail with which you report on Church scandals in general isn't beneficial either. They add to the general temptation of desperation. Would it be possible to reduce the amount of pictures in the articles, especially those of scantly clad young women? This would be a great work of charity towards your male readers.
There is also a growing tendency of trying to expose Msgr. Lefevbre as a traitor, a clandestine modernist etc., all while using the texts and accusations of a sedesvacantist. With all the battles going on inside the Church, who would benefit from a growing divide among traditionalists than the enemy of souls? Msgr. Lefevbre was called before the Eternal Judge 20 years ago, there is no need whatsoever to expose him, even if he was indeed guilty of those charges.
Last but not least, you published an article by Father Felix Sarda y Salvani which calls for the character assassination of heretics and enemies of the Church in general. I admit I have not read the works of St. Augustine which are cited to justify this. I think this approach might be a dangerous pitfall, since one could soon [fall under] the impression of being a Pharisee. Maybe you could cite more works of the Church Fathers and the words of Our Lord to deliver proof for this claim.
I hope and pray that you continue to fight for the restoration of Our Holy Mother the Church and don't take offense at my criticism but use it to make your website even more edifying.
In Christ and Mary,
We thank you for your fidelity in regularly reading our website, and we are glad to know your preferences for some special sections.
No, we do not take offense at your criticism. We will respond to it in the three parts you set out:
1. Regarding exposing scandals
Donoso Cortes, who was a Spanish counter-revolutionary of the 19th century, used to say that men love partial truths but hate the whole truth. When he said this, he was referring particularly to the liberal man. We believe his keen observation continues to be valid today among Catholics.
Why does man reject and hate the whole of Catholic doctrine? Because when the truth is revealed completely, there are points in it that indict him of the errors he holds. Therefore, many persons prefer not to accept the entire truth. If someone insists upon showing it, he will be hated by those persons.
In TIA we are committed to promote the whole truth, good and beauty of Catholic doctrine, and also to expose the Revolution in the entirety of its error, evil and hideousness.
By counseling us to cover up a little the scandalous behavior of the present day Popes, you go against our policy. We believe that, by taking this stand, you concur with the main allies of Progressivism, who are those conservative or traditionalist Catholics who close their eyes to reality because it is too hard and problematic to see the sad situation of the Church.
We do not want, however, to lead you or anyone else into the temptation of impurity or despair. Perhaps you can benefit from reading an answer to a similar objection here. Since you say it causes problems for you, we respond: “Do not look at those pictures.” During a military inspection of war damages, an officer can advise a sensitive soldier: “Do not look at those dilacerated bodies.” Nonetheless, he must continue the inspection to the end.
2. Regarding Archbishop Lefebvre
TIA considers that the traditionalist movement owes him a great deal, since he was one of the Prelates who helped to keep the Tridentine Mass alive during the decades when it was practically forbidden to be said.
The tribute of respect that we are glad to pay does not mean, however, that we should close our eyes to his wrong positions or actions.
Until sometime ago, we have heard with great insistence that Archbishop Lefebvre did not sign all the documents of Vatican II. Time proved this assumption wrong. Today, we know from photocopies revealed by the Vatican that he actually signed all of those documents.
The same circle of unconditional admirers has also spread that he never said the New Mass. The credible witness of Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, a famous theologian who at the time was a professor in the seminary of Écone, is frontally opposed to this second claim. His letter to Archbishop Lefebvre revealed concrete facts and dates that have not been denied. We believe Fr. des Lauriers’ letter was a good contribution to clarify the truth. To this moment, let us repeat, we have not had any denial from authorized sources.
In addition it has been affirmed categorically that he never accepted Vatican II. It seems unlikely that his supporters can sustain this third claim for very long, since we have at hand documents attesting to the opposite. We plan to bring them to the knowledge of our readers soon.
Our position is not one of unrestricted attack against Archbishop Lefebvre. We admire him for his courage and for many good actions he did. However, for the sake of truth and history, we want to clarify some essential points of his doctrine that the heads of SSPX systematically cover in order to present to his followers a man different from the one who actually existed. By the way, your suggestion to cover up for him seems to concur perfectly with the strategy of this cupola.
By advising TIA to cover for any wrongdoing that Archbishop Lefebvre did, you assume the same position you took regarding scandals. You propose to not look at the reality.
3. Regarding the text of Fr. Sarda y Salvany
The suspicion you have that the text by Fr. Sarda y Salvany justifying personal attacks against heretics is “a dangerous pitfall” is not sound. You may find confirmation of this doctrine in:
We believe these Saints and Doctors of the Church support that text of Fr. Sarda y Salvany sufficiently to prove the doctrine he defends is current Catholic doctrine and not a “pitfall.”
- St. Francis Sales teaches us to talk against heretics and schismatics, here;
- St. Bernard teaches us that God chastises when we do not combat evil, here;
- St. Bernard still gives us a practical example on how to deal with a heretic, here;
- St. Louis Grignion de Montfort cursed two of his enemies, here;
- St. Thomas teaches us when we can curse others, here;
- St. Cyril of Alexandria spoke strongly against Nestorius, here;
- St. Alphonsus of Ligouri shows it is fruitful to terrify sinners, here;
- St Vincent of Paul prepared crusades against heretics and infidels, here.
We hope this reply will help you in some way.
TIA correspondence desk
Posted April 25, 2011
Related Topics of Interest
Lefebvre's Proposal to Merge with Rome
'You Act as a Pontius Pilate'
Lefebvre: 'Rome Is Occupied by Antichrists'
Vatican Ultimatum to SSPX
Fellay to Guimaraes: Your Critique Is a Delirium
Hot Pros & Cons on Fellay's 'Recognition'
of Vatican II
Bishop's Rifan Betrayal
Related Works of Interest
©2002-2013 Tradition in Action, Inc. All Rights Reserved