Would "traditionalists" Recognize and Affirm what Archbishop Lefebvre said concerning the evils of Communism AND Liberal Capitalism? On the Feast of Christ the King, Let us Work for an Economy Neither Capitalist (Private Monopolies) or Communist (State Monopolies).
From Against the Heresies by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
"With the capitalist economic system, which is the fruit of the French Revolution, the same people distilled this poison of this so-called freedom, because behind it --- as the Pope says --- were the secret societies (i.e., the Masons). It was they who broke up every social structure that existed to protect the workers: the corporations, the guilds. All was broke a the time of the Revolution. The worker than found himself standing face to face with his employers; and at the same time unrestricted freedom was granted:"liberal" economy, freedom of trade, freedom of industry. Clearly, those who possessed money profited from the situation to accumulate immense fortunes at the expense of the workers, who found themselves defenseless....They were no longer united by any bond; all the guilds had been broken up and disbanded.
Nonetheless, during the 19th century, it must be recognized that due to the efforts of the Catholic Church, the efforts of Pope Leo XIII and French Catholics like de la Tour du Pin, and in other countries, for example Germany, they tried to restore to the workers some kind of organization in order to defend them against those who defended them against their work and their weakness."
---Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies (Angelus Press, 1997), pp. 317-318.
Archbishop Lefebvre is a Saint, I believe it in my heart, I say "Thank you" to him every night. Because God gave him the grace to see the TRUTH, and he risked his life to defend the TRUTH. So that we still have the True Mass and the True Faith today. Unfortunately, some of his bishops thatReplyDelete
he consecrated and some of the priests that he ordained have "turn-coat" and follow the Vatican II
religion of the Anti-Popes and Anti-Christ. Why those popes under Vatican II Conciliar Church never can do a "consecration of Russia" to the Immaculate Heart? Because they are not even real Catholics. They are Freemasons and New World Order, the religion of Luciferians. God will never throw the pearls to the filthy pigs. You Catholics supposed to figure it by now, way too late. TOO TOO LATE, WAKE UP. THEY DESTROY THE CHURCH AND BURNT DOWN THE ALTAR AND NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING YET???
The true faith teaches that the See of Peter knows no erring and that the pope is infallible and the Church indefectible. Archbishop Lefebvre did not, in practice, believe that.Delete
As if there is a thing we can do about any of this right now. Its good to know what the ideal is, but really, presently, what is there to do? We are at the mercy of the state. We just had our Masses taken away at Easter Week and for many others for much longer. We cannot go into a hardware or grocery store without a stupid mask. We will be fortunate if we don't wind up with chips in our hands just to buy food for our children. And unless Our Lady intervenes with the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart, that is where we are headed.ReplyDelete
That said, our dear Archbishop Lefebvre was right...about everything.
Not everything! He accepted the Council "in the light of tradition"! No Catholic can accept Vatican II in any way! There was another priest who threw it into another light of tradition - a big fire - the only light of tradition that it should be in.Delete
After the protestant revolution, it's hard to find any example of the pope or bishops of the world deposing any despotic king or duke. It's likewise hard to find any example of the "just price doctrine" being utilized to establish fair market value. All attempts to establish fair market value after that were left to the auction system or supply and demand only. With the elimination of any consideration for the costs of producing and marketing products, it's very hard to determine fair market value.ReplyDelete
The Church condemns unbridled competition and the guilds would prevent that by needing the consent of the local businessmen to establish a similar business in a particular area.
Why did the Church not condemn the creating of $1 worth of debt every time a new $1 was created from nothing? Why didn't the Church condemn fractional reserving of the supply of money, was it that it saw it as a tax and overlooked the transfer of wealth to those who have money to those who hold appreciating assets that occurs because of the unjustified monetary expansion it allows to occur?
Why did the Church stop enforcing the laws against usury, which transfers wealth from those who need capital, to those who have money? It would have been better to see the civil rulers outlaw usury so the penalty for doing so was not just excommunication, but fines and jail time so non-Catholics could not engage in it!
The Christian kings and dukes borrowing money and the fractional reserve banking system, as well as the protestant rebellion, laid waste to a sound economy long before the French Revolution which did indeed continue along those lines.
Usury is still condemned by the real Catholic Church. It is evil. You will find old papal teachings that oppose it.Delete
As per the decrees of Pope Urban VIII we are not permitted to pre-empt the Church in declaring an uncanonised person a saint, no matter how saintly they are perceived to be. Many, if not most, SSPX folk seem to have a great problem with this and they declare to all and sundry on the internet, in books and articles, and in general conversation, that Abp Lefebvre is the greatest saint that ever lived, raised up by God, etc. The fact is that the SSPX practically denies the infallibility of canonisations so it is more than ironic that they pray for the canonisation of Lefebvre. Maybe they think “Rome” will finally get “the process” right this time.ReplyDelete
As far as Lefebvre goes, he was inconsistent on many important issues, which has allowed people of vastly different views to claim him as one who held their position. But truth does not change, so which “truths” did he stand for, and what can one be thankful for?
When he declared “the See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs”, OR when he said “it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol” drafted by the same anti-Christs less than a year later?
When he said “if it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope”, and when he said “it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope”, OR when he expelled many priests for stating the same thing?
When he said that Vatican II was a schismatic council, OR when he said he accepted it in the light of Tradition?
It goes on and on…
“But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” St Matt. 5:37