Background to the "flip-flops" of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Multiple | 11/30/04 | F. John Loughnan

[Sean O L]

Background to the “flip-flops” Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Introduction

Reconciliation of the Priestly Union of Saint John Mary Vianney, Campos, Brazil

EWTN and other newsagencies covered the reconciliation with the Catholic Church of Bishop Licinio Rangel, 26 priests and 28,000 lay persons from Campos, Brazil:

"19-Jan-2002 --
EWTN Feature Story BRAZIL'S LEFEBVRE CATHOLICS OPT FOR FULL COMMUNION WITH ROME Rio de Janeiro (Fides)

On Friday January 18, the only schism in the Church on the most Catholic of continents, Latin America, is over. Brazilian Catholics who had followed the line of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, are being welcomed back to the bosom of the Church after 20 years of separation. etc.
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=22944

Back in the 1980's the SSPX produced a glossy brochure

"Sixty-two Reasons why, in conscience, we cannot attend the New Mass (also known as Mass of Pope Paul VI, Novus Ordo, new liturgy) either in the vernacular or the Latin, whether facing the people or facing the tabernacle. Thus, for the same reasons, we adhere faithfully to the traditional Mass (also known as Tridentine Mass, old Latin Mass, Roman Missal, Pian Missal, Missal of St Pius V, Massof All Time).
Based on the Sixty Reasons set forth by 25 diocesan priests of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil." (Emphasis added. Ed.)

There is not one GOOD reason to justify schism!!! Deo Gratias for the return of the Campos group!

On January 15, 2002, three days prior to the event, Fr. Peter Scott, (then) USA District Superior of the SSPX, issued a letter on the "reconciliation". He was NOT happy.

"Many of you have heard of the reconciliation between the traditional priests of Bishop de Castro Mayer, of the diocese of Campos, Brazil, and Rome, and some of you have asked what we are to think of it. In effect, negotiations have been going on for several months between Rome and Father Rifan, representative of the Priestly Union of Saint John Mary Vianney, and its superior, Bishop Licinio Rangel, who had been consecrated by the Society's bishops in 1991, after the death of Bishop De Castro Mayer. These negotiations were carried on without the knowledge, let alone the agreement, of the Society's superiors. As far as Bishop Fellay was concerned, the negotiations ceased after Rome refused to even respond to his letter of June 22. That letter, published in the August 2001 issue of The Angelus, responded to Rome's refusal to grant the conditions, namely that it be stated that all priests in the world have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass, and that the Society was never schismatic and neverbroke communion. In response to Cardinal Castrillon's refusal to accept that we have the right to reject the errors of Vatican II, he explained the state of necessity that is the basis of our refusal of compromise. The response to those who attack the Society for working on a hidden agreement is that there have been no discussions since then, since there is no common ground to work from, etc." [Emphasis added. Ed.] You can read the rest of the letter on the SSPX's website at http://www.sspx.com

The content and thrust of the letter has been discussed on many forums, including CTNGREG. Moderator, Bill Basile's analysis of Fr. Scott's position was a reductio ad absurdam (a reduction of Fr. Scott's argument to the absurd limit in order to expose its flaws. Ed.):

"If Vatican II is the 'Anti-Church' (something similar to the Antichrist perhaps), then it must be condemned and disavowed. There must also be 'unequivocal' signs of 'the conversion of the Pope'.

"I'd suggest", Basile wrote, "only that this conversion would require from the Pope he:

1. Abolish and condemn the Novus Ordo
2. Impose the traditional Mass worldwide in all Roman parishes
3. Condemn the errors of Vatican II and reverse all teachings that make use of those errors
4. Disavow and repent for all scandalous events like Assisi
5. Disavow and repent for his own personal actions over the past decades
6. Forbid all ecumenical gatherings
7. Condemn the idea of diversity in liturgical expression"

Just in case some of the list members thought that the above was what Bill Basile personally thought ought to happen, he explained:

"Some listmembers have asked about these proposals.

"I guess it's not a very good joke if I have to explain it.

"No, this was a reductio ad absurdum, merely taking Fr. Scott's premises to their logical conclusion, and we end with something completely ridiculous.

"The Pope is not going to renounce Vatican II, nor do I believe he should do so.

"I don't believe that he should impose the traditional Mass on the entire Church either, but probably some do believe this, and some (Fr. Scott?) won't find any common ground with Rome until something like that happens.

"I'm just trying to illustrate some of the far- fetched notions that are prevalent in SSPX circles (remember this was an official letter from the SSPX district superior).

"If the Pope has to 'convert' according to the ideas given in this letter by Fr. Scott", Basile said, "it's safe to say that a reconciliation with the SSPX will never take place, at least during this pontificate. I'd suggest that there are no candidates for the papacy in the future who would do any of the things listed above."

My 2 cents on just ONE part of Fr. Scott's letter:

Fr. Scott praised "Archbishop Lefebvre's clarity of vision..."

Please consider the following:

Preliminaries:

1. Pope Pius XII's Reform of the Holy Week Liturgy - which included the Good Friday Prayers For The Jews
2. Pope John XXIII's Motu Proprio on the Brievary and Missal
3. Archbishop Lefebvre is appointed to Vatican II Preparitory Committee
4. 1962: "...former editions [of the Roman Missal. Ed.] are no longer of obligation"
5. Congregation for Sacred Rites approves the particular calendar (...) New Missal coming 1963
6. The Petition against the Lefebvre Group's apparent "violation of the rules of the [Second Vatican. Ed.] Council"
7. The schemata prepared by Vatican II Preparity Committee are rejected by the Council Fathers
8. Lefebvre gets dropped from the Religious Liberty joint mixed committee
9. SSPXers resort to "convoluted hermeneutical acrobatics and bizarre conspiract theories in order to explain away conclusive documentary evidence."
10. Don McLean's "Catholic" periodical admits Lefebvre signed the "Liturgy Constitution", but SSPXers maintains Lefebvre did not sign Dignatatis Humanae
11. Ecône erected after the Novus Ordo was promulgated

---

1955 to 1970

---

Item #1:   Nov. 16, 1955

"The Sacred Congregation of Rites General Decree ordered all who followed the Roman Rite to follow the Restored Order of Holy Week, as prescribed by Pope Pius XII." (A.A.S.47, pp. 837-847 and Canon Law Digest, Bouscaren and O'Connor, Vol. 4, p.52)

---

Item #2:   1958

"The rubrics for Good Friday now required that all should kneel and pray silently for a short time after the Flectamus genua invitation - for 'At least for the space of a Pater Noster." (Australian Catholic Record, 1958 pp. 58). For the first time in about a thousand years, the Flectamus genua, Oremus and Levate were again applied to the Prayer for the Jews."

---

Item #3:   1960

Archbishop Lefebvre is appointed to Vatican II Central Preparatory Commission by Pope John XXIII.

---

Item #4:   July 25, 1960

"Pope John XXIII's Motu Proprio Corpus Rubricarum for the Breviary and Missal decreed:

1. "The new code of rubrics for the Roman Breviary, Missal and Calendar and Missal to be obligatory in the Roman Rite from January 1, 1961.
2. "The former general Rubrics of the Breviary and Missal ceased to be in force..The general Decree of the S.C.R. of March 23, 1956 likewise ceased. Also abrogated were those decrees and responses of the S.C.R. which didn't agree with the new form of rubrics.
3. "Similarly, statutes, privileges, indults and customs of any kind, even century-old and immemorable; further-more even those worthy of most special and individual mention all are hereby revoked, if they are contrary to these new rubrics.
4. "All concerned shall at once conformation their Calendars and Propria, either diocesan or religious, to the rule and spirit of the new redaction of Rubrics and to the Calendar approved by the S.C.R." (Australian Catholic Record, 1961, pp. 10-13)

---

Item #5:   July 26, 1960

"The revision was eventually completed by Pope John XXIII with Decree Novum Rubricarum. Some changes were made to the Ordinary (omitting the Psalm Judica me, and the Last Gospel on certain occasions. The Confetior and Absolution before the people's Communion were dropped) and in December 1962 the name of St Joseph was added to the Canon. The Missal of St Pius V was substantially unchanged and caused no anxiety at the time.
There was not the least suggestion that the popes concerned exceeded their authority, nor was there the least doubt that Pope John XXIII's Missal was still the Missal of St Pius X." ( Michael Davies: Pope Paul's New Mass, Vol III, pp. 12-15.)

---

Item #6:   Feb. 02, 1962

The S.C. of Rites Declared that "the rites, rubrics and Gregorian music to be found in former editions are no longer of obligation." (Australian Catholic Record, 1962, p.189 -190).

---

Item #7:   June 22, 1962

"The Congregation of Sacred Rites approved the particular calendar for all Archdioceses and dioceses of the United States. The new version of the Missal is expected this coming April (1963).

---

Item #8:   Oct. 8, 1964

After "the discovery of the 'plot'...by a number of prelates noted for their opposition to the very idea of religious liberty (Cardinal Browne, Archbishop Lefebvre, Father Fernandez, O.P.) News circulated (at the 2nd Vatican Council) that the decision to minimise the text on the Jews had been communicated to the five Oriental patriarchs in a meeting in the office of Cardinal Cicognani, on Thursday or Friday, Oct. 8 or 9, at which they were informed that, because of 'political and diplomatic' complications, it had been decided to divide the Jewish Declaration into three parts, incorporating the different sections in the schema De Ecclesia, Schema 13 and de Oecumensismo." (Il Messaggero, October 15, 1964 - Xavier Rynne, THE THIRD SESSION, pp. 63/4)

---

Item #9:   Oct. 11, 1964

The "Petition...'magno cum dolore' by majority leaders (of Vatican Council II) they addressed to Pope Paul is interesting for its firmness of tone and the fact that it does not hesitate to deplore the 'appearance of a violation of the rules of the Council.' (by Lefebvre's faction) - Article 58, Paragraph 2." (Xavier Rynne, The Third Session, pp. 65/6)

---

Item #10:   Oct. 16, 1964

"The Pope...directed (Cardinals Bea and Ottaviani) each to appoint two members from their respective commissions to form a joint mixed commission to consider ways in which the text on Religious Liberty could be improved. The Pope then chose five from among these twenty members, adding five names of his own, to form a consultative commission to review the text on Religious Liberty. The name of Archbishop Lefebvre, Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, did NOT appear on the list; it did contain the names of Cardinal Browne, Bishop Pelletier ... Archbishop Parente, Bishop Colombo, etc." (Xavier Rynne, The Third Session, pp. 66)

---

Item #11:   Dec. 7, 1965

Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. referred to "members and supporters of the Society of St Pius X (having) resorted to the most convoluted hermeneutical acrobatics and bizarre conspiracy theories in order to explain away the conclusive documentary evidence" that Archbishop Lefebvre did, in fact, sign Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes on December 7, 1965 - having "in a moment of submissiveness, subjected his own judgment to that of Peter and, added his signature to the documents, thereby sharing in their promulgation (but that) after the Council he quickly reverted to his total opposition to these documents, especially Dignitatis Humanae." The Latin Mass, Spring 1997

---

Item #12:   April 03, 1969

Pope Paul and the Council Fathers agreed to minor updating of the Mass to the extent that the Proper or Readings and perhaps the introductory prayers could be in the vernacular. Archbishop Lefebvre signed the Liturgy Constitution. ("Catholic", Apr 83, p3.) However, a series of exchanges appeared from the September 1990 to November 1991 in "Catholic", between Fr Brian W. Harrison, O.S. and Mr Des. J. McDonnell (who maintained that Archbishop Lefebvre had not signed Dignitatis Humanae.) Don McLean, Editor of "Catholic" definitely sided with McDonnell's false opinion.

---

Item #13:   Oct. 07, 1970

"Archbishop Lefebvre was, at the time the Council finished, the Superior of the Holy Ghost Fathers. He soon resigned this position and retired to a small apartment in Rome. Ecône was established 7/10/70." ("Catholic", Jan 87, p6.)

---

Item #14:   Nov. 01, 1970

The Society of St Pius X was canonically erected in the Diocese of Lausanna, Geneva. Ecône was established after the new Roman Missal (sometimes known as the Novus Ordo dated April 3, 1969 was promulgated on April 6, 1969. ("Catholic", Apr 83, p3.) The decree of foundation was signed by Mgr. Charriere on 11 November 1970.

---

1955 to 1970
- the Vacillations

---

Item #15:   March 1973

"I shall never say that the new Ordo Missae is heretical, I shall never say that it cannot be a Sacrifice. I believe that many priests, above all those priests who have known the old Ordo, certainly have very good intentions in saying their Mass. Far be it from me to say that everything is wrong with the new Ordo." (p. 159). (Paris Lecture, March 1973 at the invitation of the Union des Intellectuels Indenendants and the Club de la Culture française per "A Bishop Speaks Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, Writings and Addresses 1963- 1975", published by Scottish Una Voce.

Item #16:   Feb. 21, 1974

"... Mgr. Lefebvre told me his point of view: it is better to have the new mass than not to have mass at all; it is safer, to avoid losing the faith, to go to the new mass than not to go at all." Letter from Fr. Coache to Fr. Barbara, 21 Feb 1974.

Item #17:   Nov. 21, 1974

On the other hand: "On one day, Lefebvre castigates Vatican II, declaring the reform of Vatican Council II to be entirely corrupt, coming from and resulting in heresy; it is not possible for any faithful Catholic to adopt or submit to it in any way, but that it is to be categorically refused. He says that he held firmly to all that has been believed and practiced in matters of faith, morals, worship, catechetical instruction, priestly formation, Church institutions, and such things codified in the books which appeared before the Modernist influence of the Council. Rome is neo-modernist and neo-protestant. It is impossible for any alert Catholic to adopt or submit to it in any way at all." (Declaration of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre "Catholic", Jan 87, p6., and ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara.

Item #18:   June 29, 1976

In spite of all objections, he proceeded with the ordinations. Paul VI replied on 1st July by striking the priests ordained with a suspensus a divinis. On 29th July the same sanction struck Lefebvre - who replied the same day with an unequivocal declaration: "This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church of the centuries." He continually insisted upon the heresy and schism of Vatican II and its church. [ "This conciliar church is schismatic because it has taken as the basis for its updating principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church." "The church which affirms errors like these is both schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is thus not Catholic."] However, at the same time he was talking of "interpreting the council in the sense of Tradition" and was already demanding "that they allow us to experiment with Tradition." (ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara)

Item #19:   Aug. 3 1976

Interview given to the Swiss Journal Nouvelliste at Sion:
"I claim now, since the Council...those who hold the power, at least the Roman Congregations, are in the process of leading the Church into schism." ("Catholic", Jan 87, p.6).

Item #20:   Aug. 3, 1976

"But, then, less than a week later, speaking of the council, he said: 'I do not reject it altogether. I accept the council in so far as it conforms to Tradition.' France-Soir, Aug. 4, 1976. What is more, in a statement to the newspaper 'Le Figaro', he excelled himself. After repeating his harsh words of 29th July and questioning the legitimacy of Paul VI, he concluded: 'We are thus quite decided to continue our work of the restoration of the Catholic priesthood whatever happens, convinced that we can render no better service to the Church, to the pope, to the bishops and to the faithful. Let them allow us to experiment with tradition.' Le Figaro, Aug. 3, 1976"

Item #21:   Aug 4, 1976

Mgr. Lefebvre treats the conciliar church, its hierarchy and particularly its "pope" as schismatic: "All those who cooperate in the application of this upheaval, accept and adhere to this new conciliar church ... enter into schism." Le Figaro, (ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara)

Item #22:  

• Sept. 25, 1976
  

The "Ottavianni Intervention" was "written by a group of Roman theologians headed by Archbishop Lefebvre." [sic]. Note: Also claimed to be one of the main priests responsible for drafting it was Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., - per Fr. Jean Violette, Newsletter June-July, 1996. des Lauriers later taught at Ecône and, finally, became a Thucite sede vacantist schismatic Thuc line Bishop. per Dr Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D. I understand that Fr. des Lauriers was reconciled with the Church prior to his death.

Item #23:   September 1976

"Ecône: Didn't You Always? A question:
'Isn't this Liturgy of John XXIII the one in which you priests were trained and ordained at Ecône?' The answer is no. We received no appreciable liturgical training whatever at Ecône, and until the September of 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI. (Indeed, concelebration was permitted in our first statutes.) The celebrant sat on the side and listened to readings, or himself performed them at lecterns facing the people. The only reason the readings were done in Latin and not in French, we were told, is that the seminary is an international one! (Interestingly enough, the Ordinances of the Society, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently in force, allow for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular - without reading them first in Latin.)

"It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Ecône, because the rubrics were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.

"The best I can say is that over the years a certain eclectic blend of rubrics developed based on the double principle of

• what the Archbishop liked, and
• what one did in France.

"These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. It is simply the 'Rite of Ecône,' a law unto itself...

"As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way in which they celebrate Mass today ...

"At one time we were taught to reject the Vatican Council II entirely..."
The Roman Catholic, by Fr Daniel L. Dolan, June 1983.

A contemporary of Bishop Richard Williamson, Fr Daniel L. Dolan was one of nine U.S.A. Society priests expelled from the Society in 1980 by Archbishop Lefebvre ".... because "they refused to pray for the Pope at Mass, they refused to conform to the liturgy of the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and they refused to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII" "Catholic", Nov 83, p.3

Item #24:   Nov. 16, 1976

Firstly: Lefebvre agreed with the propositions that

1. "Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council properly convoked by the reigning Pontiff according to the accepted norms.";
   
   
2. He accepted "that its official documents were voted for by a majority of the Council Fathers and validly promulgated by the reigning Pontiff."; and then he disagreed with the next allegation:
   
   
3. That "you intend to consecrate one or more bishops to continue your work. Is this true?"
   
   "Mgr. Lefebvre: It is totally untrue."
   From from an Interview with Michael Davies. "Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre", Vol. 1, pp. 347/8.

On June 30, 1988, He DID consecrated three bishops under "Operation Survival" "Catholic" Aug/Sep. 88, p.1. Those three bishops went on to consecrate Bishop Licinio Rangel of Campos, Brazil (see above) - without a mandate from the Pope - an action which earned for themselves a SECOND excommunication! This is not to say that in 1976 the Archbishop did have any intentions to consecrate, however, some believed the contrary at that time.

Item #25:   Mar. 19, 1978

Today he says: "The Catholic-protestant mass, a spring henceforth poisoned which produces incalculable ravages. The ecumenical mass leads logically to apostasy." Lettre aux amis et bienfaiteurs No. 14. Mar. 19, 1978.

Item #26:   Dec. 24, 1978

On another day, he lowers himself to beg from these (who he calls) "schismatics" a recognition for which he is still waiting: "Most Holy Father, for the honour of Jesus Christ, for the good of the Church, for the salvation of souls, we beseech you to say a single word, a single word: 'Let them continue'." Letter to John Paul II, 24 December 1978.

Item #27:   Nov. 8, 1979

Lefebvre stated that his own views had not changed over the years; that no one should be mistaken regarding his and the official position of the SSPX on the Novus Ordo Missae - which was: that no one in the SSPX could "tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid..." "Catholic", July & Nov 83, p.3.

Item #28:   Nov. 8, 1979

Up to the 8 November 1979 Declaration, Lefebvre had called the Roman Catholic Church (the so-called "Conciliar Church") "the official church which is not the Church." (Conference at Vienne, 9 September 1975), and "a schismatic church." (Allocution at the rally of international Catholic associations, 20 April 1976.)

Item #29:   Jan. 11 & 12, 1979

In his answer to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, above Lefebvre "excuses" his statements in this way: "If in my discourses I made use of somewhat extreme expressions, allowances must be made for literary style." "Schismatic church", "heretical church" - the literary style of the prelate of Econe is corrosive enough, but his withdrawal is quite pitiful. (ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara)

Item #30:   1980

"The Holy Week ceremonies at Ecône conform to Maxima Redemptionis." (wrote Michael Davies, POPE PAUL'S NEW MASS, Vol III, Footnote to p. 12.) [That is including Pope Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week ceremonies - which include the full "Prayers for the Jews".] ?

Item #31:   Mar. 8, 1980

Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope John Paul II

"Most Holy Father,

To Put an end to some rumours which are now spreading both in Rome and certain traditionalist circles in Europe, and even in America, concerning my attitude and my way of thinking with respect to the Pope, the Council, and the NOVUS ORDO Mass, and fearing lest these rumours should reach Your Holiness, I make so bold as to reaffirm my consistent position.

"I have no reservations whatsoever regarding the legitimacy and validity of your election, and consequently I cannot tolerate there not being addressed to God the prayers prescribed by Holy Church for Your Holiness. I have already had to act with severity, and continue to do so, with regard to some seminarians and priests who have allowed themselves to be influenced by certain clerics who do not belong to the Society.

"I am fully in agreement with the judgement that Your Holiness gave on the Second Vatican Council, on November 6, 1978, at a meeting of the Sacred College: 'that the Council must be understood in light of the whole of Holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.

"As for the NOVUS ORDO Mass, despite the reservations which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical.

"I would be grateful...hasten free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society...etc." ("Catholic", Jan 84, p.2).

(Now see his response to Letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Mgr. Lefebvre Dec. 23, 1982, where, in regard to recognition of Roman Missal he says:

"Thus my reply to the paragraph concerning the Novus Ordo Missal is in the negative." Letter dated 5/4/1983.

Item #32:   May 9, 1980

"The New Mass can fulfil the Sunday obligation. Lefebvre to Michael Davies. "Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre" Vol 2, p. 367

Item #33:   June 30, 1980

"...in regard to the new mass, Mgr. Lefebvre knows how to join deeds with words and give an example. On 30 June 1980, on the occasion of the obsequies of a member of his family, accompanied by Fr. Simoulin, he assisted "actively" at "Luther's mass" completely in the modern fashion. (ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara. Please refer to 28/7/96 Item.

Item #34:   Apr. 5, 1983

"...we do not see any other solutions to the problem than:
1. Freedom to celebrate the Old Rite according to the edition of Liturgical Books authorised by Pope John XXIII." Lefebvre Letter to Sovereign Pontiff,

Item #35:   Oct. 3, 1984

On the other hand: On the Decree of the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship (released 15/10/84) to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, Fr (later Bishop) Richard Williamson stated:
"While acknowledging that a Pope may legitimately introduce a new rite of Mass, we can never admit that a rite, departing so far from Tradition as the Novus Ordo Missae is, as such, legitimate or doctrinally sound." "THE VATICAN DECREE" "Catholic", Dec 84, p.4.

Item #36:   1986

"All these Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it. The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls." (Archbishop Lefebvre, "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics" Chapter: "The Marriage of the Church and the Revolution", p. 116

Item #37:   1986

In a rather imprecise manner, Archbishop Lefebvre expressed his opinions regarding a "valid" though "sacrilegious" Mass (limiting himself to a "valid though sacrilegious" Novus Ordo Mass), and as to whether it can satisfy the Sunday obligation. "... may I assist at a sacrilegious mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these masses cannot be the object of an obligation..." ("An Open Letter To Confused Catholics", by Arch bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books Ltd for The Society of St Pius X, p. 36, 1986.

Fr Kevin Robinson of Hampton, Australia, during the Sermon on the Novus Ordo "hedged his bets", stating that Archbishop Lefebvre

1. Had NEVER described it as being invalid, nor heretical, nor not fulfilling the Sunday obligation.
   
   
2. At the same time, he had NEVER described it as being in the contrary sense, i.e., NOT BEING invalid, nor NOT BEING heretical, nor AS fulfilling the Sunday obligation, and had never said it himself. (Of course, he did not disclose that Lefebvre had actively participated in the Novus Ordo!!! July 28, 1996.

Item #38:   Sept. 4, 1987

"Rome has apostacised, the Roman churchmen are quitting the Church, their program of de-christianising society is an abomination." Lefebvre "in a conference to Society priests at Ecône. "Catholic", Dec 87, p1. and,
"The Chair of Peter and the positions of authority in Rome are occupied by anti-Christs." - Archbishop Lefebvre, Dossier sur les Consécrations Episcopales, August 28, 1987.

Item #39:   May 5, 1988

Lefebvre signed a PROTOCOL OF ACCORD for himself and Society Members:
"3) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics." (Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, Father François Laisney, p.77).

Item #40:   May 5, 1988

The Protocol was accepted by both parties! "The Cardinal informed us that we would now have to allow one New Mass to be celebrated at St Nicholas du Chardonnet. He insisted on the one and only Church, that of Vatican II. In spite of these disappointments, I signed the Protocol on May 5th..." (A Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre, signed June 19, 1988 - as recorded in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p.207, by Fr. François Laisney, who was then Editor of The Angelus Press. It is to be noted here that Archbishop Lefebvre signed the protocol "to allow one New Mass to be celebrated..." - a Mass that Fathers Violette and Peek would later describe as "intrinsically evil". Was Vatican Council II Voided by Pope Pius II's "Execrabilis"? - A Commentary on Mr D.J. McDonnell's Article in Oct. 1998 "Catholic"), by F John Loughnan

Fr Harrison, O.S., pointed out that "Mr McDonald (along with the French traditionalists who were the source of his 'information') is just plain wrong. It is an indisputable historical fact that those two prelates [Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer. Ed.] signed the final, officially promulgated Declaration on Religious Liberty..." "Catholic" April 1991.

Item #41:   May 6, 1988

That he would allow himself to be almost immediately dissuaded, (from honouring his word and signature relative to the Protocol) and showing that the 1965 event (relative to repudiating his signing of Dignitatis Humanae) was not an isolated event, is history - Fr. Harrison wrote (The Latin Mass of Spring 1997): "Those who remember the events of May-June 1988 will not find this sudden about-face on the part of Lefebvre to be out of character; after all, he retracted almost immediately the agreement he had signed on May 5 with Cardinal Ratzinger which would have given legitimacy to the SSPX. Also, it seems that former members of the SSPX have testified that in private, the Archbishop vacillated between a sedevacantist outlook and acceptance of John Paul II as being a true pope." Was Vatican Council II Voided by Pope Pius II's "Execrabilis"?

Item #41:   June 30, 1988

Lefebvre consecrated 3 bishops: "Operation Survival". "Catholic", Aug/Sep 88, p1.

---

The Consequences:
Excommunication for Schism

---

Some Documents of the Case Include:

1.  1988, May 5 - PROTOCOL OF AGREEMENT between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre

2.  1988, July 1 - DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION

3.  1988, July 2 - "ECCLESIA DEI" - Apostolic Letter of John Paul II

4.  1993, June 28 - USA APOSTOLIC NUNCIATURE to Mrs. PATRICIA MORLEY

5.  1995, Sept. 27 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Reply to Scott Windsor

6.  1996, Aug. 24 - THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS On The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre

7.  1996, Oct. 31 - Responses from THE PONTIFICAL CONGREGATION OF BISHOPS, and THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS

8.  1998, Oct. 27 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Reply to F. John Loughnan

9.  2002, Aug. 14 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Reply to unknown person [1]

10.  2002, Apr. 15 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Reply to unknown person [2]

11.  2002, Sept. 27 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Second Reply to unknown person [1]

12.  2003, Jan. 18 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Communicated to Una Voce America - being a follow up to that of Sept. 27, 2002

The above and other documents may be viewed in the following links:

Ecclesiastical Documents on the Schism and Excommunication of the SSPX - Extracts

Ecclesiastical Documents on the Schism and Excommunication of the SSPX - The Documents in Full - all in one place.

---

"He (Lefebvre) often says, in defence of his work, that the saints did not act differently.

"Whatever the prelate may say, the wild seminaries, the ordinations without dimissorial letters, confirmations and confessions without jurisdiction are practices contrary to what has always been done in the Church.

"With the exception of the heretical-schismatics who do not recognize the Catholic Church as the sole ark of salvation and do not belong to her, no bishop or saint whatever has ever opened a seminary, a university, a place of worship, even a private one, or administered the sacraments without the previous permission of the Ordinary, still less in defying his prohibition, without having first denounced him as a heretic and acting publicly in consequence, as did St. Athanasius in his day."
ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara

---

The following is a composite extract from:

Schism, Obedience and the Society of St. Pius X, and
The Story of the Vanishing Schism:
The Strange Case of Cardinal Lara
by John Beaumont and John Walsh

"...During the last twenty years a not inconsiderable number of Catholics have followed the lead given by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X founded by him, thinking that this was the way to defend what they believed to be the traditional Catholic faith in a time of crisis in the Church...

...The Consequences of These Errors

...How can the Society of St. Pius X still be in communion with the pope and the Church?

Consider the following facts:

1. The Society establishes seminaries, churches, chapels, and priories throughout the world without any reference to the local ordinaries in whose dioceses it carries out these acts. This is contrary to the Code of Canon Law (Canons 234, 237, 1215, 1223-1228).
   
   

2. It ordains priests without the dismissorial letters required by Canon Law (Canons 1015, 1018-1023).
   
   

3. It hears confessions and celebrates marriages without jurisdiction (Canons 966-976, 1108-1123).
   
   

4. It gives Holy Communion to persons who are well known sede vacantists (Canon 844). This is in spite of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself regarded such movements as having a "schismatic spirit" (Open Letter to Confused Catholics (1986), p.155).
   
   

5. It refused Pope Paul VI's command to close the seminary at Econe and wind up the Society (see the letter of the Commission of Cardinals to Archbishop Lefebvre and that of Pope Paul VI to the Archbishop, dated 6th May, 1975 and 29th June, 1975 respectively. both of which are reprinted, together with the Society's responses, in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume One, pp. 57- 59; 112- 119).
   
   

6. It carries out confirmations in other bishops' dioceses. This is contrary to the Council of Trent which decrees that:

   "No bishop is permitted under any pretext or privilege whatsoever to exercise episcopal functions in the diocese of another bishop, without the permission of the Ordinary of the place and with regard to persons subordinate to the same Ordinary. If any bishop does otherwise, he will be lawfully suspended from his episcopal functions . . ." (Sess. VII, cp. 5, emphasis supplied).

7. It purports to accept John Paul II as pope and yet rejects parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by him in his capacity as supreme legislator (see, e.g., Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, ed. Fr. François Laisney (1988), pp. 176-178).
   
   

8. Finally, in 1988 the Society consecrated four bishops, knowing that this was against the express will of the pope, and then in 1991 proceeded to consecrate a further bishop in a diocese (Campos in Brazil) where, as the Society itself recognizes, there is already a valid bishop. This is contrary to Canon 1013. Furthermore, the Society of St. Pius X cites not a single declaration of a pope or a council (to say nothing of theologians and Church fathers) stating that there may be a legitimate episcopal consecration against the will of the pope. But according to Pope Pius XII, who was so revered by Archbishop Lefebvre. an episcopal consecration done against the will of the pope is an offense against divine law.
   
   

   "No one may legitimately confer episcopal consecration unless in advance the particular papal authorization is in [the consecrating bishop's] possession. Through this criminal act there is carried out a most serious attack on the unity of the Church Itself. Therefore, for such a consecration performed against divine and human law, there is established the penalty of excommunication . . ." (Apostolorum Principis [1958]).
   
   

To sum up, then, here is an organization which pays no regard whatsoever to the commands and laws of legitimate authority in the Church and which refuses to do the express will of the supreme pontiff in matters of great importance for use visible unity of the Church. Put all of these things together and what we have is an autonomous organization, a petite eglise, an independent Church. If this does not constitute schism, what does?...

...So there we have it. And the response of the SSPX? Well, having written twice to the editor of The Angelus over the Lara ease without any response, we decided to give that one a miss this time and save the postage. Bishop Williamson's somewhat brief response to the Lara issue was evidently meant for that of Geringer as well, since he had been sent both sets of correspondences. There was nothing from Dominguez, nor this time from Michael Davies (except a thank you). However, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais came up with a new tactic. We quote the relevant section from his letter:

For Professor Geringer, in 1988, with the episcopal consecrations of Msgr. Lefebvre, 'there is no church of Lefebvre.' And for this very reason, he said, the faithful adhering to him are still Catholics." He adds: 'If, one day, Lefebvre should found a Church independent of Rome and if those want to adhere to him, then it would be another thing.'" (letter to John Beaumont, dated December 30th, 1993)

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais puts his faith in the 1988 version of Geringer...

...To end on a positive note, the one thing that should be emphasized in this whole sorry affair is the extent of the real evidence for the Lefebvrist schism. All in all we have the following items of evidence:

• The decision of the Pope that there is a schism.
  
  

• The decision of the Catholic Church to the same effect.
  
  

• The teaching of Cardinal Castillo Lara former President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, again, that there is a schism.
  
  

• The teaching of Pope Pius XII that an episcopal consecration against the will of the Pope is an offense against divine law as well as against human law (Apostolorum Principis [1958]).
  As a matter of canon law the act of 30th June 1988 fits the definition of schism contained in the Code of Canon Law. It is not any of us who decide this. The Church in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta does so. Canon law can only be interpreted by the law-maker (Canon 16).
  
  

• Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus requires Catholics to obey decisions of the Holy See in matters of this kind.
  
  

• The Society of St. Pius X is unable to cite from 2000 years of Tradition any pope doctor or council to justify episcopal consecration against the express will of the Pope.
  
  

• The Society of St. Pius X and its apologists have to misquote a canonist in order to defend their case. In addition as we have shown in "Schism, Obedience and the Society of St. Pius X," the SSPX even has to rewrite the Catholic definitions of schism and obedience to justify its position.
  
  

What more evidence do these people want? Our own experience has shown us that even an ex cathedra definition by the Pope, or a direct revelation from Our Lord Himself, would not move some of them. Some would no doubt say, "But, Cardinal Lara says. . . " Has it now come to such a stage that, for traditionalists, a schism is decided by the authoritative voice of a Davies, a Scott, or a Williamson? Heaven preserve us from such a break with Tradition. Whatever qualities and merits these people have, it is obvious that not one of them knows what the primacy of Peter is all about."

More info. on the SSPX

The Flat Earth Society and the SSPX

[bornacatholic]

Pope Benedict....

Whenever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.

[bornacatholic]

through hatred trads have become just like their enemies, the modernists. both oppose the Pope when it suits them

Pascendi "It is pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience and causes them to demand a compromise between authority and liberty; it is pride that makes of them the reformers of others, while they forget to reform themselves, and which begets their absolute want of respect for authority, not excepting the supreme authority. No, truly, there is no road which leads so directly and so quickly to Modernism as pride."

Just substitue "traditionalism" for Modernism

[bornacatholic]

Scratch a traditionalist reveal a modernist

Pope Pius IX: Quanta Cura §5

"We cannot pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that 'without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.' But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church."

[bornacatholic]

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time

*This is a Dogma you, and others like you, refuse to accept.

[bornacatholic]

Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a Living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own

*Come back home, Robert

[bornacatholic]

Humani Generis

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" (Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

[bornacatholic]

SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII

... 21. It happens far otherwise with Christians; they receive their rule of faith from the Church, by whose authority and under whose guidance they are conscious that they have beyond question attained to truth. Consequently, as the Church is one, because Jesus Christ is one, so throughout the whole Christian world there is, and ought to be, but one doctrine: "One Lord, one faith;"(22) "but having the same spirit of faith,"(23) they possess the saving principle whence proceed spontaneously one and the same will in all, and one and the same tenor of action.

22. Now, as the Apostle Paul urges, this unanimity ought to be perfect. Christian faith reposes not on human but on divine authority, for what God has revealed "we believe not on account of the intrinsic evidence of the truth perceived by the natural light of our reason, but on account of the authority of God revealing, who cannot be deceived nor Himself deceive."(24) It follows as a consequence that whatever things are manifestly revealed by God we must receive with a similar and equal assent. To refuse to believe any one of them is equivalent to rejecting them all, for those at once destroy the very groundwork of faith who deny that God has spoken to men, or who bring into doubt His infinite truth and wisdom. To determine, however, which are the doctrines divinely revealed belongs to the teaching Church, to whom God has entrusted the safekeeping and interpretation of His utterances. But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect, because it is enjoined by faith itself, and has this in common with faith, that it cannot be given in shreds; nay, were it not absolute and perfect in every particular, it might wear the name of obedience, but its essence would disappear. Christian usage attaches such value to this perfection of obedience that it has been, and will ever be, accounted the distinguishing mark by which we are able to recognize Catholics. Admirably does the following passage from St. Thomas Aquinas set before us the right view: "The formal object of faith is primary truth, as it is shown forth in the holy Scriptures, and in the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the fountainhead of truth. It follows, therefore, that he who does not adhere, as to an infallible divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the primary truth manifested in the holy Scriptures, possesses not the habit of faith; but matters of faith he holds otherwise than true faith. Now, it is evident that he who clings to the doctrines of the Church as to an infallible rule yields his assent to everything the Church teaches; but otherwise, if with reference to what the Church teaches he holds what he likes but does not hold what he does not like, he adheres not to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will."(25)

23. "The faith of the whole Church should be one, according to the precept (1 Cor. 1:10): "Let all speak the same thing, and let there be no schisms among you"; and this cannot be observed save on condition that questions which arise touching faith should be determined by him who presides over the whole Church, whose sentence must consequently be accepted without wavering. And hence to the sole authority of the supreme Pontiff does it pertain to publish a new revision of the symbol, as also to decree all other matters that concern the universal Church."(26)

24. In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed "with Catholic and divine faith."(27) But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the apostolic see. And how fitting it is that this should be so any one can easily perceive. For the things contained in the divine oracles have reference to God in part, and in part to man, and to whatever is necessary for the attainment of his eternal salvation. Now, both these, that is to say, what we are bound to believe and what we are obliged to do, are laid down, as we have stated, by the Church using her divine right, and in the Church by the supreme Pontiff. Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.

*So, it appears Pope Leo would consider today's schismatics heretics...

[Sean O L]

Once again, you get it wrong. Here you confuse the griping of a sedevacantist priest who was expelled from the Econe, with the "facts." These are not "facts", not by a long stretch.

No! Once again YOU have it wrong! There were a number of seminarians at Econe, including Daniel Dolan, who then had sedevacantist orientations. Nonetheless, Lefebvre (who vacillated between a sort of "respect" for Rome and on other occasions of calling the Pope and the curia guilty of heriesies and of being antiChrist) nevertheless, ordained those seminarians who were "fiddling" with sedevacantist opinions. AFTER their postings to the USA and after a period of time (when Lefebvre felt like cuddling up to the one he described as "antichrist") THEN he expelled the 9 in the USA. Your "facts" are "fiction".

[bornacatholic]

Consistory Allocution of 2 June 1944, "The mandate Confided to Peter" Pope Pius XII:

Mother Church, Catholic, Roman, which has remained faithful to the constitution received from her divine Founder, which still stands firm today on the solidity of the rock on which His will erected her, possesses in the primacy of Peter and of his legitimate successors, the assurance, guaranteed by the divine promises, of keeping and transmitting inviolate and in all its integrity through the centuries and millennia to the very end of time the entire sum of truth and grace contained in the redemptive mission of Christ.

[bornacatholic]

St. Pius X..Iucunda Sane:

Never throughout the course of ages has supernatural power been lacking in the Church; never have the promises of Christ failed. They remain as powerful today as they were when they filled the heart of Gregory with consolation. Rather, having withstood the test of time and the change of circumstances and events, they possess even greater assurance...

*You trad-peeps invoke Pope St. Pius, but you believe differently than did he

[bornacatholic]

Council of Trent

'No bishop is permitted under any pretext or privilege whatsoever to exercise episcopal functions in the diocese of another bishop, without the permission of the Ordinary of the place and with regard to persons subordinate to the same Ordinary. If any bishop does otherwise, he will be lawfully suspended from his episcopal functions . . .' (Sess. VII, cp. 5,)

*Trent in opposition to the excomunicated schismatic Lefevbre and his followers

[bornacatholic]

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] . For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received

[sinkspur]

People like Bornacatholic and Sinkspur are most likely members of Opus Dei who are doing anything they can to rationalize the downfall of the Church from an incomptent hierarchy.

People like OptimusPrime5 (a likely retread from a previous banning) is, first of all, rude for not pinging Sinkspur when his name is mentioned, and wrong about Sinkspur's membership in Opus Dei. I'm not particularly a fan of Opus Dei, or any group that seeks to impose weird disciplines on people.

But, you criticize Opus Dei because it is a devotee of the Novus Ordo. In that, Jose Maria Escriva (a saint of the Roman Catholic Church) was a wise man.

[bornacatholic]

Catechism of St. Pius XTH

Q: What is the Catholic Church?

A: The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.

9 Q: State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?

A: To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.

10 Q: Who are the lawful pastors of the Church?

A: The lawful pastors of the Church are the Roman Pontiff, that is, the Pope, who is Supreme Pastor, and the Bishops. Other priests, also, and especially Parish Priests, have a share in the pastoral office, subject to the Bishop and the Pope.

11 Q: Why do you say that the Roman Pontiff is supreme Pastor of the Church?

A: Because Jesus Christ said to St. Peter, the first Pope: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thee shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever the shallot loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." And again: "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep."

12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?

A: No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

13 Q: How can the Church of Jesus Christ be distinguished from the numerous societies or sects founded by men, and calling themselves Christian?

A: From the numerous societies or sects founded by men and calling themselves Christian, the Church of Jesus Christ is easily distinguished by four marks: She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

14 Q: Why is the Church called One?

A: The true Church is called One, because her children of all ages and places are united together in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same law; and in participation of the same Sacraments, under the same visible Head, the Roman Pontiff.

*accrd to Pope St Pius X, you need to come home

[bornacatholic]

I have spent some time assembling these quotes for the benefit of those in union with the Pope and for those who trust in the promises of Jesus.

I am under no illusion they will persuade those in schism. These things have been posted by me before. I just thought it'd be useful to post many of them all on one thread.

I don't know if sinkspur is opus dei or not. I am not but I think they are a fine organization in union with Rome.

I am, however, a member of a far larger organization - an organization of sinful Christian Catholics all of whom are in union with Peter. We meet in my local Parish Church every Sunday (at a minimum)

[Lilllabettt]

Something was wierd about your post, and I think I've figured out what it is. You call the Pope by his given name, Karol Wojtyla.

When I have seen people do this in the past, it has been out of a certain amount of affection. As in, 'Karol Wojtyla, my good Polish buddy, my good Polish pal, who I knew even before his election to the chair of Peter, even before Krakow' etc.

I am guessing that is not your reason. So what is it? I'm just curious, is all. I can't think why you would want to go to the trouble of spelling out W-o-j-t-y-l-a every time. So enlighten me.

[Sean O L]

Judas was also a "favourite" of Christ's: he was an Apostle. That did not prevent him from falling away: nor did a past illustrious life prevent Tertullian from becoming an heretic; nor Lefebvre & Co. from becoming schismatics.

Willful adherence to the schism of Lefebvre and his TWICE excommunicated bishops (the second one being incurred automatically for consecrating Bp. Rangel of Campos) also places the adherents in the same state of schism and excommunication - all bleatings from the SSPX and associated "independents", Thucites, etc. to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Sean O L]

We are now all God's creatures belonging to churches of equal merit without distiction in the ability of being saved.

Those are YOUR words or misinterpretation of some-one else's interpretation. They are NOT the words, thoughts or intentions of the pope.

As Br. Ignatius Mary says:

"1) No, not all religions are the same. Not all religions worship the same God. Religions are not all on equal ground. The Church teaches that we might find some grain of truth in all religions to which we can agree with them and fellowship upon, but the Church does not say that all religions are equal or as good as any other.

"2) No, this idea of all religions as good as another is NOT what the Pope is saying or teaching. Rather, the Pope is doing what Christ mandated -- going to all the world to preach the Gospel. In doing that the Pope recognizes the dignity of all persons. He recognizes that all people are children of God, even if they have travelled down the wrong road and have an erroneous understanding of God.

"The common dignity of man and the common reality that we are all God's children should lead us to dialogue (not necessarily agreement, but a dialogue). This dialogue is efficacious in the common goals of world peace, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, promoting justice and respect of all persons, etc.

"This dialogue the Pope speaks about does NOT compromise the Revealed Truth of God entrusted to the Catholic Church even one iota. He dialogues with fellow travelers on this planet; he never compromises the Truth of the Catholic Faith.

"3) No, we are not expected to believe that all religions worship the same God. Some religions worship the devil, others worship creation instead of the creator. and still others worship idols. The world's religions do not all worship the same God; but....

".... the world's religions were created as a primitive attempt to try to understand God. The problem is that most of the religions did not have the advantage that Jews and Christians had -- that of God revealing Himself to us through the prophets and through Sacred Scriptures and Tradition.

"Since the various ancient religions did not have this guidance that we had, they did the best they could. Understanding this point is not depreciating the Truth of Christianity at all, it is merely understanding a historical fact."

[ultima ratio]

Cite your sources please. There's a whole lot of garbage here--a lot of it not in your own language. Whom are you quoting?

By the way, when the Archbishop said the Pope belonged to a mafia--he meant this metaphorically. He was referring to the modernist claque now running the Vatican, not the Mob. And he was absolutely right. They did unprecedented violence to the Catholic faith. The prayer meetings at Assisi, for instance, were scandalous and an offense against the first commandment. The Archbishop did right to object vociferously and adamantly since the Pope gave huge scandal to the world of Christianity--twice, just to rub it in to those who objected. People like you who claim he is an orthodox pope need only take a look at these kinds of actions to realize such a description of this radical pontiff is ridiculous on the face of it.

I also can accept that the Archbishop may have celebrated the Novus Ordo at St. Peter's once or twice. It was his way to lean over backwards to be compliant with the Holy See, even when it stuck in his craw to do so. It was why he signed the Protocol--even when it contained no promise for any traditionalist consecrations as had been discussed but only a vague suggestion that the subject would be left to the Pope's discretion. He did not want a break with Rome--but Rome pushed him to the wall--until finally he pushed back in the name of the true faith. The entire Catholic Church should be eternally grateful he did since he struck a huge blow in favor of the ancient Mass--and for the ancient Catholic faith. Thank God for his courage in the face of such unprecedented dishonesty and abuse of power.