Consequences for the people: Indifferentism

What do the faithful conclude from such a text (i.e. the Common Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Lutherans)? I will tell you what happened just 3 days ago. I was in Paris. I heard this story from a priest in St. Nicholas du Chardonnet. He was called by a simple man who was dying. He was a Catholic. The priest came and said: “Can I hear your confession?” And the man said: “No way. The Pope signed an agreement with the Protestants. That means that the Protestants are equal to the Catholics. And the Protestants don’t need to go to confession” . You see the conclusion: we will call it indifferentism. It makes people think that it doesn’t make a difference. It is indifferent, whether we belong to one religion or to another.

Another example of Ecumenism: The discipline about mixed marriages

In an official text between Catholics and Protestants in Germany, about mixed marriages, it is said that it is very necessary to have the children baptized also in the mixed marriages. But which religion to choose if one part is Protestant and the other one Catholic? They say, in this official text signed by the head of the Catholic Church in Germany and the head of the Lutherans: “We will choose the religion of the most convinced”. That is the new way of solving the problem. It’s no longer the truth that matters, but only the (subjective) conviction. This is very grave.

Our reaction of protest to the Pope

Almost at the same time, just a few days before, there was a gathering in Rome, an interreligious meeting. You had Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists and lots of others. Because of this, I thought it necessary to write to the Pope. I know that the Pope will never give an answer, because first he will never try to justify himself, but even more seriously, because he is so convinced of these affairs that he would really need a tremendous amount of grace to come back.

I asked him: “You are the representative of Almighty God, you are the Vicar of Christ. You take the place of Christ here on earth. And you associate with religions that deny Jesus is God. What are you going to do there? You are asking these people to pray, but there is only one advocate, one mediator, one who brings our prayers to God, it is Jesus. And you invite people to pray who refuse this only mediator, Jesus! What will be the result ? I said that he was humiliating the Church by doing so, even that he was dividing the Church. He is putting most of the people into indifferentism. People finally think: there is no need to be Catholic. Any religion is fine.

How the Pope defends Ecumenism: The Holy Ghost is everywhere

And the Pope explains why he does so: because, he says, the Holy Ghost is everywhere, He is also in the other religions. The other religions, he says, are the result of people who have made a deep mystical experience under the influence of the Holy Ghost. Which means that every religion is just the fruit of the Holy Ghost. This is not what we read in Holy Scripture. It is pure invention. We have here a reasoning that is misconstrued; we call it a sophism. They say that God is everywhere. Granted. But then He must also be in the other religions because they are somewhere. As you can see, there is something wrong here. A way to answer to this is: it is true, and God is also in Hell, but this is not a place where I would like to meet God, I prefer to meet him in Heaven.

So where is the trick? It is: they don’t make the distinction between the natural and the supernatural order. God as Creator of every being is present to that being, it is true. In that sense He is also present in Hell or in the devils. But as you can see, it has nothing to do with Grace. It is just because He is Creator, and so the Cause must be in contact with its effect. But He is not everywhere as the Good Father who is giving us His supernatural life. No. The Holy Scripture often makes this distinction very clear.

You can go even further. Everything that exists needs to be from God, only God gives existence. So the fact that in any sin there is an act, that comes from God. Imagine I give a blow to somebody. The strength I need to hit, that comes from God. But the fact that my fist is hitting the face of my neighbour, that does not come from God, but from me. This is sin: the wrong use, or the abuse of the help of God which is making me capable of doing something, but I misuse this capacity, and instead of doing something good with it, I do something bad.

Is there some good in the other religions ?

There is another way to say this: evil, or sin, is always a privation of something good. It should be something good, and it is less than good. You never understand evil if you do not look at the good which is contrary to it. You cannot know what is sickness, if you don’t know what is health. You don’t know what is blindness, if you don’t know what is sight. If there would be no eyes, we would never speak of blindness as being something evil. And this is very important. When they say that there is something good in the other religions, this is true. There is something good. But that does not mean that these false religions are good as a whole. Evil is always a failing: something is failing in the total good, and this makes it evil. If you make a soup, you put the best water, the best vegetables, the best salt in it, but one drop on poison. Everything else is good, but this one drop on poison makes it all evil and bad. If you present it to somebody: look, there are very good vegetables in that soup… but there is also a drop of poison. Nobody will drink it: the whole soup is bad because of this one element which is not good.

We can say the same thing about the other religions. Some have a lot of the same teachings as the Catholic Church. Some almost none. But the fact that something is failing is enough to say they are bad. We may even say that those who are the most similar to the Catholic Church are the worst. Because it’s more difficult to turn somebody from something which is almost true back to the whole truth than from something which is obviously wrong. For example, Muslims are much more difficult to convert than the Animists. The Animists in Africa convert by crowds. In Libreville, in Gabon, we have 1500 children in Catechism classes. The children speak amongst themselves. The pagans, and those who go to the modern Church see that they don’t know anything, so they come to us saying: I want to know something. And they join us in large numbers. But the Muslims, no, they don’t care, they are happy with what they have.

Is at least the good in other religions a help for these people?

When you try to convert somebody, to convince him that he is wrong, you don’t tell him: you are right. No. You say: look, here you are wrong, therefore you must come to the conclusion you have to change your opinion. And so to pretend that the good in a false religion is a great help for these people to convert is wrong. It is exactly the contrary. And to say that we have to show what is uniting us with these religions rather than what is dividing us is totally wrong. Because you help them to stick to their errors. And there are the fruits of Ecumenism: there are no more missions. This Ecumenism comes from Protestantism, and it will never produce the unity of the Church. The Church is already one, it has never lost its oneness. But those who have departed have to come back to the unity of the Church. That is the prayer we say every time we pray for the heretics, schismatics…. We pray that they come back to the unity of the Church. But the Church does not lose its unity. We say it every time in the Creed: I believe in the one holy Catholic Church. The oneness can never be lost. Those who separate themselves lose the true unity, but not the Catholic Church.

It is very important to keep the right sense on this matter because we are overwhelmed with errors on that level. And it is very dangerous because some of these things appear to be almost Catholic – but they are not at all.

Another analogy: 2 plus 2 make 4. Now, if a child in the classroom writes: 2 plus 2 makes 3 or 6 or 5 or 10,000, he will get a zero. Now the ecumenist says: you say that 2 plus 2 make 3. Well, that’s almost 4. Or, if you say 6: that’s too much but you have it: 4, and a bit more. We have to see what is uniting us, what we have in common. No! The truth is one. There are thousands of possible errors for one single truth. And this indifferentism is continuing to grow.

There are certainly some Cardinals in Rome who are against this movement, but they cannot make their point. Either they are not courageous enough or they are blocked. It is very difficult to say what is really happening there. It is a catastrophe.

The attack against the true Mass: has the bull of St. Pius V been abrogated?

Let’s see the situation of the Mass. Something is on the move right now. The modern Rome tries to put an end, not to the Tridentine Mass directly, but to those who want it as the only Mass, to those who say: the new Mass is bad, or who say: there are errors in the documents from the Vatican II Council.

Rome has started with an attack on June 11^th 1999. The Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship has given an answer to the Archbishop of Sienna in Italy who was asking Rome: “Can a priest say the Tridentine Mass just in the name of the bull Quo Primum of St. Pius V?” Cardinal Medina said: “No, because the Tridentine Mass has been abolished by the New Mass even though the New Mass doesn’t say it. If the Pope (Paul VI) would have wanted to keep it, he would have said it. But he didn’t”. Now, the Code of Canon Law says exactly the contrary: you cannot abolish previous customs if you don’t say that you abolish them. This shows how the Vatican is abusing their authority. Just a few years ago, Cardinal Stickler said that the Tridentine Mass cannot be abrogated, because it is an immemorial custom. Throughout the ages, it has been the Mass of the Church and you cannot just say one day that it is no longer so. You cannot come one day saying that the Mass which has sanctified so many saints during 1600 years is suddenly wiped out! It doesn’t work like that in the Church. Suarez and Torquemada,  among other great theologians, said that if a Pope would change all the rites of the Church, he would be a schismatic!

Cardinal Medina continues asking himself: “Can a Pope oblige another Pope ? Can he say: everybody can, forever, celebrate this Mass? Can he bind his successors ?” The Cardinal answers: no, he can’t. This, once again, is wrong. For example, on the matter of Faith, if a Pope defines a dogma, the following popes are bound. Cardinal Medina recognizes this, but he says that if it is only an ecclesiastical law, then the pope can change what was before. We say: the Mass is not just an ecclesiastical law. It touches the Faith.

I give you here a little story. A little boy 5 years old goes with his father to the New Mass. The father wants to prepare his child to receive Holy Communion. He tells his child: after the Consecration of the Host by the priest, it is Jesus, it is God! And he asks his boy: what is in the hands of the priest? The boy says: a white thing. Dad is not happy with that answer. One day they go to a Tridentine Mass. Dad asks again: what does the priest hold in his hands after the Consecration? The child answers: God! His father asks: What is the difference? The priest, says the child, genuflected just after the Consecration! So a little child 5 years old can conclude from this genuflection that the priest has God in his hands. It was the Faith which was speaking in his heart.

The crisis in the Fraternity of St. Peter

The attacks against the Mass also involved the Fraternity of St. Peter. These priests left us at the time of the Consecrations (of the four bishops by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988), not because of the Mass but because they thought Archbishop Lefebvre was going too far in consecrating four bishops against the will of the Pope. And especially because Rome made an offer to them: come to us, and we will grant you the traditional Mass. So they signed an agreement with Rome in which it was clearly written that they were granted the right to say the old Mass. And in their Constitutions, they worked to have this in writing. For example in the Constitution of the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer, it is said that their members must say the Tridentine Mass. This was back in 1988.

The Protocol 1411

In 1999, on July 3^rd, Cardinal Medina issued a text known as: Protocol 1411. Three questions are asked:

1 – Can a priest of these Societies under the Ecclesia Dei Commission celebrate the New Mass? Answer: of course. The New Mass is the Mass of the Church, the old Mass is just an exception. And even in certain cases these priests must say the New Mass. When for example they visit a community or a parish which is used to the New Mass, these visitors must say the New Mass, because otherwise they would disturb these people who are used to the vernacular, the new calendar, and so on.

2 – Second question: can the Superior prohibit his priests from celebrating the New Mass? Answer: No, he can’t. The New Mass is the Mass of the whole Church.

3 – Third question: can a priest concelebrate the New Mass? Yes, and even, on Holy Thursday, he should, to show that he is in communion with his bishop.

When the Fraternity of St. Peter read that, they went to Rome with a petition. Fr. Bisig, the Fraternity of St. Peter’s Superior, and Fr. De Blignieres, the Superior of the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer, wrote a kind of petition: “You promised that we would be able to say only the Old Mass. And now what you ask goes against that promise. If you do so, we will no longer be able to govern our societies. It is in our Statutes: we are obliged to say the traditional Mass. You go against our statutes. And finally, if you do so, our faithful will go back to the Society of St. Pius X.”

This text is dated: Rome, 23^rd of July 1999. At the same time, at the beginning of July, Rome is writing a letter to Fr. Bisig. He has been accused by 16 of his priests of being too rigid, especially about the question of the Mass, and of failing to accomplish reforms which were put forward by the Ecclesia Dei Commission. He is accused of copying the Society of St. Pius X. These 16 priests say the new seminarians are fascinated by Archbishop Lefebvre, and that they want to copy him. They almost say they have a schismatic attitude. These 16 priests ask Rome to dismiss Fr. Bisig, to send a visitor and to suppress the general Chapter that was planned in August.

So on July 13^th, Fr. Bisig received the following letter. I will give you some excerpts because it demonstrates how Rome behaves. “Given the quite important number of signatures of this recourse (the 16 priests) equivalent to about one third of the incardinated members of the Institute, and given the gravity of the problems raised, this pontifical Commission cannot but take into consideration this action. The facts enumerated in this recourse add to other facts which have already in recent times come to the knowledge of this pontifical Commission. For these reasons, this pontifical Commission has decided to act without delay in order to avoid negative and damaging consequences to the Fraternity itself and to the work of integrating the traditional faithful into the reality of the Church.”

“The root cause of the present difficulties seem to be a lack of confidence in the Hierarchy of the Church at all levels… May be there is at the foundation of this attitude a certain disdain, mistrust of the work of the Council Vatican II which above all implies the liturgy reformed by Pope Paul VI. The refusal of all concelebration to the Mass celebrated according to the rite in force is unfortunately the manifestation of this. As is known, such a lack of confidence was already at the origin of the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre and persists there still. It is our duty to take preventive measures to avoid a similar evolution in your institute”.

Why is the Fraternity of St. Peter powerless?

Now what are the arguments that the Fraternity of St. Peter uses when it goes to Rome? They have recognised and signed that the New Mass is good. So they cannot say: we refuse the New Mass because it’s bad. So they say two things:

1 – “You promised”; 2 – “It’s in our Statutes and Constitutions”.

How does Rome react to that? Fr. Bisig said: “You promised, because it’s in the Protocol that we have the right to say the Old Mass”. Here I have a relation of the meeting of Fr. Bisig with Cardinal Medina in Rome. “The Protocol, says the latter, has never been signed. Thus, it is of no worth.” Fr. Bisig then shows to him a photocopy of the Protocol, which is signed. Answer of the Cardinal: “Well, it was never ratified by the Pope, and it was revoked the following day (by Archbishop Lefebvre, 5^th of May 1988). And anyway it just shows general ideas, it is not a contract, it is the project of a contract”. We see here their bad will. And why do they make reference to Archbishop Lefebvre? The Fraternity of St. Peter signed the Protocol with Rome also, and this was ratified by the Pope. It is interesting to note by the way that the reference is Archbishop Lefebvre, not the Fraternity of St. Peter. Fr. Bisig also said: “It is in our Constitutions: only the Tridentine Mass”. Monsignor Perl replies: “I read your Constitutions. No, I cannot conclude from there to the monoritual (only one rite)”. It is striking to see: they laugh at their people, they really mock them. They don’t keep their word. And this is Rome today!

Fr. Bisig then goes to the head of the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature, Monsignor De Magistris, who says, after reading the Constitutions of the Fraternity: “Yes, this means that usually you have to say the Old Mass, but once on a while you can say the New Mass”. They are really trapped. And they have no defence, because they have taken the wrong principles. Let me explain this a little bit to you.

First wrong principle: To refuse reality in the name of Faith

The first wrong principle is to imply that in any case the Pope is right. This means that if the Pope says something, and if I experience the contrary, I am wrong, the Pope is right. So they say: “I have the impression that the New Mass is not good. But the Pope says it’s good. So it is good”. You see, in a certain way, they refuse reality in the name of the Faith. We have to hold to the Faith. But at the same time we have to hold to reality. On the Cross, Jesus suffered and died. That was the reality. But we have to believe that He is God, and God cannot suffer nor die. Faith said to the Apostles: God cannot suffer and cannot die, and Jesus is God. But at the same time, they experienced the evidence of the contrary: Jesus suffers and Jesus dies. If they refuse either part, they are wrong. The only right way was to stick to both parts: Jesus is Almighty God, and at the same time He is suffering and dying. We know that He is dying in His human nature, but not in His divine nature, although it is the same Person.

The same test is offered to us today about the Church. Let’s look at the Pope: he is infallible. The Church cannot fail. That’s the Faith. The Church is holy. At the same time, we have the evidence of the contrary: the Pope is kissing the Koran, he is receiving the “sacred ashes” from pagans in India, he is doing pagan sacrifices in Togo. It seems to be a total contradiction. Some people say: this cannot be the Pope, that cannot be the Church. Like those who said before the Cross at Calvary: He cannot suffer, it’s impossible. Some heretics said that it’s not God who suffered on the Cross, it was only an impression.

The sedevacantists say: This cannot be the Pope. No. It’s not that simple. On the other hand, the Fraternity of St. Peter would say the contrary: “I have the impression that the New Mass is bad, but the Church cannot do something silly, so I have to follow. It must be good.” They take a conclusion opposite to the one of the sedevacantists, but it is basically the same error: they reject one part of the Mystery.

The only right way in this crisis of the Church

The only right way to go through this test is, first, to keep the Faith: the Church is holy, is Catholic, is One. Second: these terrible facts that I see, like Masses with devilish dances, we cannot say it’s good, we have to say it’s bad. We have to keep these two things even if we cannot explain them together. We have to say: the Catholic Church is still there. If you say that the Pope is not the Pope, then bishops are not true bishops, so where is the (visible) Church? Then they finally say: we have to make ourselves a Pope, like Gregory XVII, Clement XV, Pius XIII, Linus II, and so on. All these false popes do not solve at all this crisis of the Church. We have to maintain that Pope John-Paul II in Rome is still the pope, but that he is a bad pope, doing wrong. What are his responsibilities, this is known to God alone. We are not his judges. But what we see is that we cannot follow him. If we do, we would put our Faith in danger. We cannot do something which is harming the Church. So we have to say: “No, we cannot”.

God knows how He will solve the problem. We must keep Faith and Hope. He is really the boss. The day He wants, He will solve the problem the same way He calmed the tempest (on the sea of Galilee) with just one word: “Silence!”. If He wants, He can do the same with the Church. He is in control. He allows some evil, even great evil, but always for a greater good. I think we will see in the not too distant future very very great things. Because the situation of the Church today is an absolute catastrophe. The gates of Hell will not prevail. We will see the Church getting out of this crisis, and the worse it gets, the closer we are to the end of the crisis. What will happen and how, I have no idea. But I have to say this to you: be ready! Ready to lose everything, but not the Faith! Ready for persecutions, hard times, knowing that the more grave the trials, the more we will receive God’s help.