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

[Sean O L]

Bravo, bornacatholic! Bravo!

Your posts exactly correspond with my memories as a former SSPXer of over 23 years duration!

I thank God for His Mercy in leading me (and many others) out of the schismatic cult known as the SSPX,

[ultima ratio]

These scurrilous lies linking the SSPX priests with Nazism are false. These sources, which you do not cite, are making unsupportable claims and have never been corroborated. You quote a former so-called "confidante" of the Archbishop regarding a purported statement by him admitting that he would be like Luther if he ever consecrated bishops. How convenient. Of course this "confidante" goes nameless. Why not? Any hit will do, even if it's bogus.

Tell me, if you can, do you think the Holy See would have sought to negotiate with SSPX bishops to regularize the current situation if it believed the SSPX were the bunch of Nazi looney sympathizers here depicted? Would the SSPX have garnered such wide respect among the faithful if this were the case? Get it through your very thick skull: these are good and holy men, dedicated to the Catholic faith, who are continually slandered by people like you who bruit these lies about, over and over. These good priests are the very opposite of what you contend.

By the way, it is also false to say as you do that Lefebvre called the Pope an anti-Christ. He spoke of "anti-Christs" in the plural, referring to many modernist churchmen in very high places within the Vatican apparatus who made it their life ambition to destroy Catholic Tradition. In this judgment he was absolutely correct. So also was he correct to speak of the warnings of both Pius IX and Pius X that modernism was waiting for a chance to pounce--and that we were now living with the devastation of that movement within the Church ever since the close of Vatican II.

[ultima ratio]

That John Paul is a pope who is widely celebrated does not make him immune from sin or error. Your claim seems to be that because he is the pontiff and Lefebvre is not, he is right and the Archbishop necessarily wrong. But the Pope is as liable as you or I for injustice and abuse of power and errors in judgment--unless he is speaking ex cathedra--and the fact that he holds the highest office in the Church and can do or say whatever he wants, does not make him right. It only means he has the ultimate clout LEGALLY, nothing more--certainly not morally. And he should be resisted when he is wrong and leads the Church astray--as he has been doing throughout his pontificate.

I know it is hard for those like yourself who admire him greatly to do so, but try looking at the evidence dispassionately and then try to explain away the enormous damage inflicted by his appointments to high office of so many unworthy men, for instance, or by his reckless pan-religious ecumenism that gave such scandal, or by his refusal to reform what is systemically corrupt within his Church or even to protect the dogmas of faith currently collapsing everywhere in the western world. Any way you hack it, the evidence of widespread ruin to the Catholic faith under his aegis should prove to you how right the Archbishop had been all along, that there was no springtime resulting from Vatican II, that the Church was in the deep throes of crisis as he said, and that despite papal claims to the contrary, the course the Pontiff was following was harmful to the Church and had already led to the ruin of many souls.

Or as one great Doctor of the Church stated it, "Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish, or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." (St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, doctor of the Church; De Romano Pontifice, 2,29)

[Land of the Irish]

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

What another arrogant statement from you to take it upon yourself to judge who is outside the Church.

Bornacatholic, SOL,marshmallow:

For your edification:

On Papalotry

[ultima ratio]

You say, "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'."

I say it is you who espouse the real fiction. Show where Archbishop Lefebvre had ever called the pope an antiChrist. You cannot do so! He spoke of ANTICHRISTS in the plural--obviously referring to those revolutionists in the Holy See who sought to dismantle Catholic tradition. Look up the quotation. When you do so, you will see that you have taken it out of context, that he used the conditional mode when he spoke of the Pope and insisted he was not yet ready to say the Pope was a heretic, though he was highly suspicious of a pope who prayed with witchdoctors and voodoo priests and placed the Church on a par with idolators, something no pope had ever done before in all of Church history. He angrily declared this suspicion--and why not? But the real FACT is that despite this he never did ascribe to sedevacantism and warned all seminarians against this temptation to ascribe to it, insisting that all members of the SSPX pray daily for the Pope and remain loyal, and even expelling those priests from his Society who avowed the chair of Peter was vacant.

What you call his "cuddling up" to the Pope, moreover, was simply his respect for the papacy itself. He never reversed his opinions, he merely worded them more softly at times in an effort to reach a rapprochement. He deeply revered the papal office, as any traditionalist Catholic would--and leaned over backwards to try to understand where the postconciliar popes were coming from--even when they put on shows like Assisi that came perilously close to heresy, and even when they instituted policies that had a clearly disastrous affect on hundreds of millions of Catholics around the world. It was why he signed the Protocol Agreement--trusting in the papacy, even when nothing the Pope actually did gave him any indication he should do so. It was only at the last minute that he realized it was impossible to trust Rome--and so he reneged. I give him a pass for this absolutely. Why? Because a pope has all the power of the Church at his disposal--even if he's wrong and even when his pontificate is a disaster. It is not easy to deal with popes, let alone one as stubborn and inflexible as JPII.

[ultima ratio]

Most of these citations of yours are of popes who would have sided with Archbishop Lefebvre, not with JPII, in the present impasse. And Trent would readily and unequivocally have condemned the Novus Ordo.

Here's my own favorite quote: "If any pope teaches what is contrary to Church doctrine, do not follow him." --Pius IX

[ultima ratio]

Oh, I see. A former SSPX-er. Were you dismissed for some reason? This would explain your animus.

[marshmallow]

Before I even click on the link, I see the word "papalotry".

This is a word taken from the lexicon of fundamentalist protestants.

When you read statements like this:

Convoking Vatican II was a personal decision of John XXIII. He may have thought God was telling him to call it, but who knows? He has no special charism that guarantees he would recognize such a decision as coming from the Holy Ghost with theological certitude.

Ask yourself one question; "could a protestant happily sign off on this statement?". If the answer is "yes", then pause for a moment and think.

How does Marra know what special charisms John XXIII had? Perhaps Marra himself has a special charism that enables him to judge the Pope's charisms.

Furthermore, Marra likes to make statements such as: "And we Catholics are never obliged to believe that a given command, or given decision of anyone, including the Pope, is necessarily that of the Holy Ghost."

OK. Key word; "necessarily". There is a big difference between this, however, and saying that a given command or decision is definitely not that of the Holy Ghost, which is what Marra wants to say and what in fact is said all day, every day, by those in the traditionalist movement.

The idea that "only when the Church invokes its infallible authority are we compelled to pay attention, the rest of the time my opinion is as good as the Pope's" is a seriously flawed one and it opens the door to exactly the sort of contestation that surrounds the Pope's work and teaching today. This is protestantism disguised as the keeping of tradition.

Sorry, Dr. Marra. The Pope does have a special charism to guide the Barque of Peter, which you don't.

Who the dickens is William Marra anyway? Apart from a guy with an internet connection just like me?

[Land of the Irish]

There is a big difference between this, however, and saying that a given command or decision is definitely not that of the Holy Ghost, which is what Marra wants to say and what in fact is said all day, every day, by those in the traditionalist movement.

Who the dickens is William Marra anyway?

First of all, Marra was not a traditionalist. Secondly, who are you to determine what somebody "wants to say". Are you omniscient?

"Dr. William A. Marra was born in Jersey City, New Jersey on February 20, 1928 of Italian immigrant parents. He grew up in Jersey City, but attended the Jesuit-run Regis High School in New York City. He went to college at the University of Detroit School of Engineering also run by the Jesuits. After college he attended graduate school at Fordham University. After his release from the military, in 1952, he began a teaching career at Fordham University that spanned nearly four decades. At Fordham he met the man he would later call the greatest influence on my life - Dietrich von Hildebrand."

"Prompted by concerns over the emerging practice of sex-education in both public and parochial schools, in 1968-69, he began a second career as a lecturer. He initially spoke to groups dedicated to fighting abuses in local schools. He also founded alternative private schools, the most notable being the Holy Innocents schools, a small chain of parent-managed primary schools. Dr. Marra served as vice-president of Catholics United for the Faith*. He founded the Roman Forum Lecture Series which often featured his friend von Hildebrand as its speaker. In addition, Dr. Marra often lectured on such varied topics as evolution, liturgy, philosophy, and seminary education."

"In later years Dr. Marra expanded his lectures to include various topics related to the condition of the Catholic Church with a special emphasis on home schooling and parental rights. He authored and co-authored numerous articles, as well as published a work in philosophy, Happiness and Christian Hope."

"Dr. Marra appeared on Mother Angelica's EWTN Network, and spoke to numerous groups of religious and clergy, including Mother Angelica's own order. He was returning from a series of seminars given in Alabama when he became ill and died from a stroke on December 12, 1998."

*From C.U.F.F.'s mission statement:
Catholics United for the Faith is an international lay apostolate founded in 1968 by H. Lyman Stebbins to support, defend, and advance the efforts of the Teaching Church in accord with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

[marshmallow]

Secondly, who are you to determine what somebody "wants to say". Are you omniscient?

No. I chose the wrong words. "What Marra is implying" would probably have been a better turn of phrase. I stand by my point, however. He does the same thing elsewhere in his essay when he says:

But who said that the decision to call the council was protected by the Holy Ghost?

A straw man. Nobody says "the decision was protected by the Holy Ghost". Because there is no cast iron guarantee of this, however, are we therefore to necessarily assume the opposite, i.e. that it was not the work of the Holy Ghost?

That is often the leap of logic which is taken by those who have a problem with the council.

Marra's essay could be summed up in one sentence "the pope can be wrong and has been in the past."

True enough but so what? This gives rise to a more pertinent question, however, which Marra flirts with but shys away from: "Why does that necessarily mean that he is wrong now and just as importantly, who decides if he is?"

Traditionalist or no traditionalist, one fact remains.

If the Pope's teachings and decisions are subject to Marra's (or anyone else's) second guessing, simply because there is no invocation of infallible authority, then Marra is the Pope.

It's as simple as that.

[Gerard.P]

Hi All,

I've been reading for some time and at the urging of a friend find myself needing to throw in some comments.

On the comment:"If the Pope's teachings and decisions are subject to Marra's (or anyone else's) second guessing, simply because there is no invocation of infallible authority, then Marra is the Pope. It's as simple as that."

A person can only infer from a statement like this, that you subscribe to a doctrine of irresistibility to the Pope?

If not, was St. Paul second guessing St. Peter as recorded in Galatians? There is no material difference on the part of St Peter's behavior and St. Paul's rebuke regarding the events at Assisi except for the fact that St. Peter was known to have exhibited humility in accepting Paul's rebuke. Also St. Peter's behavior was on a far smaller scale than JPII's.

If JPII has not been upright in the faith taking the example of Assisi I and II, then, the fault lies with him and not the archbishop. The archbishop was then forced to take steps that St.Paul was not required to but speculatively might have done to maintain the purity of the transmission of the faith.

If one studies the case of the archbishop as well, you will realize that JPII never actually directly ordered the archbishop not to consecrate bishops. He cajoled, appealed and pleaded but never actually commanded.

[sinkspur]

If one studies the case of the archbishop as well, you will realize that JPII never actually directly ordered the archbishop not to consecrate bishops. He cajoled, appealed and pleaded but never actually commanded.

The names of episcopal candidates are submitted to Rome, and Rome approves them. That's how it's been done for a hundred years, in most every diocese and country of the world.

The fact that JPII never approved a single one of these men indicates that ordaining them was, at the very least, illicit.

Lefebvre knew he was jumping off a cliff with these ordinations.

[Gerard.P]

The names of episcopal candidates are submitted to Rome, and Rome approves them. That's how it's been done for a hundred years, in most every diocese and country of the world. The fact that JPII never approved a single one of these men indicates that ordaining them was, at the very least, illicit.

Multiple lists were sent to Rome and they were all constantly rejected. LeFebvre knew at the end that Rome would never approve of a strong traditional priest. That's how LeFebvre knew they were simply waiting for him to die. Since there is no doctrine of irresistibility in regards the Pontiff and it is obvious he was not upright in the Faith just as Peter was. LeFebvre was fully in line with tradition for his resistance.

Lefebvre knew he was jumping off a cliff with these ordinations.

What LeFebvre knew and is now painfully obvious to the whole world is that JPII and the rest of his curia had long ago gone over the cliff as far as being upright in the faith is concerned. God will not be mocked with Canon Laws being abused against LeFebvre.

[sinkspur]

Since there is no doctrine of irresistibility in regards the Pontiff and it is obvious he was not upright in the Faith just as Peter was. LeFebvre was fully in line with tradition for his resistance.

That's a new one. "Irresistibility." You traddies make up terminology as you go, inventing a new concept yet again to explain your schism from the Pope.

Lefebvre was hell-bent to keep his little movement going. He would defy the Pope, regardless.

Welcome to the witches brew that is the FR religion forum. You traddies are like termites, coming out of the woodwork. Did Vennari send you over here?

[marshmallow]

The Pope is not irresistible. There have been occasions down through Church history when he has been taken to task. However it needs to be said that these occasions have been infrequent- I believe that is correct- and the person doing the rebuking has been someone formed in outstanding holiness through great suffering. Furthermore, they were rebuked over specific issues.

There is an issue of scale and proportion here. What is being alleged in the modern era is that pope after pope after pope (John XXIII, Paul VI, JPI, JPII) has been in error and if I correctly understand some contributors to this forum, they have been in error in almost every area of their ministry. They are not being accused of doing something wrong. They are being accused of doing everything wrong.

That is unique, I believe. What is being alleged is not mistakes in specific issues but a wholesale hijacking of the Church by successive popes such that it has gone in completely the wrong direction.

To buy into this theory one must go a whole lot further than simply accept the idea that he is not irresistible. One must subscribe to the idea of a complete papal dereliction of duty over decades by different popes.

This is not the same thing as Paul's rebuke of Peter.

[Gerard.P]

That's a new one. "Irresistibility." You traddies make up terminology as you go... The word has been around a long time. Using it in this context is called defining things. Catholics name all the heresies eventually.

...inventing a new concept.

No. Describing a reality. Do you believe the Pope is irresistable? Yes or No? If yes, Why?

yet again to explain your schism from the Pope.

No. It doesn't explain a schism that never happened. That is irrelevant anyway as to whether or not the Pope is irresistible or not. The term "irresistibility" describes the errors of those who believe the Pope is irresistible. This is of course un-Catholic.

Lefebvre was hell-bent to keep his little movement going. He would defy the Pope, regardless.

As long as the Pope acts like Peter at Antioch and worse, he is fully justified in passing on the faith undiluted with the errors of JPII.

Welcome to the witches brew that is the FR religion forum.

Thank you.

You traddies are like termites, coming out of the woodwork. Did Vennari send you over here?

Very charitable of you. But I'm used to over-emotionalism from Neo-Catholics. As Gerry Matatics told me, "as long as you don't crumble when someone calls you names, you can keep speaking the truth." No. Mr. Vennari didn't send me over. Patrick Madrid basically did. You can thank him. After I mopped up the floor with him and the others who took shots at "traddies" and when he was backed into a corner and made to look foolish by his positions, (Basically, I just asked him how many people he actually interviewed who currently attend Masses by the SSPX, and how many times and chapels he'd actually visited ) he did the only thing left to him and deleted all of the posts and deleted my registration. I'm currently disembowling his latest screed. "More Catholic Than the Pope" in fulfillment of a promise I made to him. My red pen is running out of ink, it is so full of errors.

[sinkspur]

I'm currently disembowling his latest screed. "More Catholic Than the Pope" in fulfillment of a promise I made to him.

Uh-huh. Sure. Any fool can come on a website and say anything.

I've read Patrick's book, and it's quite good, though I wish he had spread his focus to the independents and sedevacantists.

He makes his points well, however. And, his bona fides are well-established.

I'll believe you backed him into a corner when hell freezes over.

Until then, have fun with your "irresistibilities". No doubt you'll be writing a book for The Remnant, Traditio, or any of a number of sectarian sites, trashing Madrid a-la Woods and Ferrara.

Does Gerry Matatics applaud your following a dead archbishop? I doubt it, since Matatics is thoroughly Catholic, and will not renounce John Paul II.

[murphE]

for tomorrow

[Gerard.P]

The Pope is not irresistible. There have been occasions down through Church history when he has been taken to task.

Is this era free from that possibility for some reason?

However it needs to be said that these occasions have been infrequent- I believe that is correct- and the person doing the rebuking has been someone formed in outstanding holiness through great suffering.

I'm not so sure of that as a rule, St. Paul was a murderer and persecutor of Christians, St. Augustine lead a life of sin and debauchery, Moses was a murderer, Samson was a killer and vain and arrogant. Formation had little to do with their ability to fight for God.

Furthermore, they were rebuked over specific issues.

LeFebvre and the SSPX have constantly pointed to the specific doctrinal areas that they have issues with. Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, the implementation of the Council and the refusal to define the documents of the Council in accord with tradition. The principles for which they stand are quite public and can be found on their many official websites.

There is an issue of scale and proportion here. What is being alleged in the modern era is that pope after pope after pope (John XXIII, Paul VI, JPI, JPII) has been in error and if I correctly understand some contributors to this forum, they have been in error in almost every area of their ministry.

For the sake of argument, where is this an impossibility in Catholic doctrine?

They are not being accused of doing something wrong. They are being accused of doing everything wrong.

Not speaking for others, I will only say, that the self-contradictory content of the statements of post-conciliar Popes (including John XXIII though along with JPI, the least contradictory due to their deaths ) Paul VI contradicts JPII on the Rosary. (Paul put the kibbosh on adding mysteries to the Rosary and thought all additions should be new devotions separate from the Rosary) JPII contradicts himself on Communion in the Hand, Altar girls etc. One minute it's forbidden another it's an "enrichment." The worst is his view of the papacy itself as demonstrated in "Ut Unum Sint" where he is "open to a new situation" regarding the exercise of papal primacy and never defines what it is. He alludes to a heretical position that is outright condemned by Vatican I as a common consent to allow the papacy to moderate disputes.

That is unique, I believe. What is being alleged is not mistakes in specific issues but a wholesale hijacking of the Church by successive popes such that it has gone in completely the wrong direction.

That it has gone in any direction is the crux of the argument. The Catholic Church is not "progressive or conservative" As St. Pius X indicated there is a tension between progressive and conservative forces which work seemingly at odds but actually work together to undermine the Church. Truth is truth, it doesn't move. Ecumenism is a movement, not a truth. Ecumenism (false ecumenism) has been the main focus of all the post conciliar pontiffs. To resist these "movements" in the Church is not heresy but rather a strong defense of the unchanging and immutable truths of the Church.

To buy into this theory one must go a whole lot further than simply accept the idea that he is not irresistible. One must subscribe to the idea of a complete papal dereliction of duty over decades by different popes.

We would look today on a papal sex scandal as an impossibility but the Church has many examples in history. We are only talking about 40 years thus far. Democrats held the U.S. House for more than that with an ideological influence on the country. The Soviets were in power for 70 years. It is far easier for a modernistic Pope to place similarly thinking prelates all over the Church in a few years and undermine it terribly.

This is not the same thing as Paul's rebuke of Peter.

How so? I see JPII's actions with regards ecumenism as the exact same thing but on a grand scale as far as the immediate influence he has and the damage done to Catholics regarding Indifferentism. They are both the single actions of a single Pope. The difference is the speed in which the information travels and the level of politicking it takes for a bishop to set the Pope straight on these issues. JPII and Paul VI both had and have layers of ministries blocking a brother bishop from keeping the big cheese in line. St. Augustine would never be tolerated in today's Church with his constant meddling in other bishop's territories and his lack of tolerance with their errors.

[Gerard.P]

I'm currently disembowling his latest screed. "More Catholic Than the Pope" in fulfillment of a promise I made to him.

Uh-huh. Sure. Any fool can come on a website and say anything.

True, but irrelevant.

I've read Patrick's book, and it's quite good, though I wish he had spread his focus to the independents and sedevacantists.

Pick a section and we'll go through it together. Line by line. The book is unfocused and makes more logical fallacies than I'd previously thought possible. It is hardly "Inside" and he defines "Extreme" as anyone who criticizes the Pope.(page 12 paragraph 2) His "background" is completely one-sided, sloppy and lacking in important details regarding the back and forth between LeFebvre and the Vatican. The Vatican actions are not even mentioned, just LeFebvre's reactions. The heart of the story is not schism as he states in the opening paragraphs, it is doctrine.

He makes his points well, however. And, his bona fides are well-established.

In Pope Fiction, Yes. In this book, no. He establishes false premises and relies on loaded language to "poison the well" his logic is found wanting when it comes to debating traditionalists. Here's a snippet pieced together from an exchange he and I had on Envoy Encore: http://www.envoymagazine.com/EnvoyEncore/ArchiveWeek.asp?WeekStart=7/25/2004#1962

Patty Bonds: "I just have to say that I'm puzzled when people read two hundred some comments, half of which are hostile, angry, chest beating accusations against the Pope, the Church and against Patrick and Pete and their book"

Gerard: I'm puzzled as to why you're puzzled that someone would rise to defend the Catholic Faith from cloudy-minded, modernist influenced extreme conciliarists when a book is promoted that on its face presents a biased view of the good people of the SSPX.

Patrick Madrid: "Extreme Conciliarist"? Now that's a fun new term! What exactly does it mean, Gerard? And would you apply the term "Extreme Conciliarist" to, say, St. Athanasius, for his stalwart and unswerving defense of the validity and teachings of teh First Council of Nicea against the errors of the Arians?

Gerard: It's like "extreme traditionalist" but with reference to reality. It's the stretching of logic, plain common sense, theology and the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility to extremes. An overemotional attachment to the conciliar Church and a markedly knee-jerk negative reaction to common sense, particularly when one points out the absurd state of affairs in Christ's Church organization. The sensus catholicus is overshadowed by an emotional and intellectual imbalance. Pride is a major factor, covering up an insecurity that is the result of the loss of grace and consequent guilt by participating in the Conciliar destruction of the Church organization.

"And would you apply the term "Extreme Conciliarist" to, say, St. Athanasius, for his stalwart and unswerving defense of the validity and teachings of teh First Council of Nicea against the errors of the Arians?"

No. St. Athanasius didn't exaggerate the teachings of Nicea or extend the priveleges of the Church beyond all revelation. St. Athanasius by the way withdrew to hiding in a house in to order to avoid the traps set by his enemies. Much like archbishop LeFebvre not walking into the Lion's mouth. Though LeFebve cuts an even more heroic figure than even Athanasius. The crisis that LeFebvre faced and we face is even greater than the Arian Heresy and it encompasses the entire world. (none of this AmChurch nonsense)

I'll believe you backed him into a corner when hell freezes over.

eh. Learn the hard way then. I crossed swords with him on multiple occasions and he floundered each time. This is simply because I didn't challenge him when I knew he was right but only when he's wrong. He's just not willing to admit when he's in over his head. Pride is quite a stumbling block.

Until then, have fun with your "irresistibilities".

Not going to deal with it? That's okay. I see you were afraid to answer the simple question of whether the Pope is irresitible or not. It was a simple "yes" or "no" Remember, make your "yes" mean "yes" and your "no" mean "no".

No doubt you'll be writing a book for The Remnant, Traditio, or any of a number of sectarian sites, trashing Madrid a-la Woods and Ferrara.

Good idea! Thanks for that. But I'm not trashing Madrid. Just his error-filled ideas. He and the other neo-Catholics can't help but lash out since they have so much emotion invested in their errors. Actual Catholic teaching is painful to them, they can't admit that they were wrong, lead down a primrose path and that God is really calling them to defend the faith for real and not just placate lazy-minded baptized Catholics. I don't hate Madrid even though he boils over with anger when he tries to deal with me. I realize that it's just the conflict going on inside him.

Does Gerry Matatics applaud your following a dead archbishop?

Yes. Actually he does. He knows that Catholics have to go to lengths to get proper doctrine and valid sacraments. He goes where the Mass is. He's been to Mel Gibson's independent Church and had Mass with him and his congregation before speaking to them.

I doubt it, since Matatics is thoroughly Catholic, and will not renounce John Paul II.

I guess you haven't heard Matatics speak much about the problems of the current heirarchy. On one of his tape sets "Traditionalists answer their neo-Conservative Critics" he makes a joke about wanting to print up a bumper sticker that says, "Don't blame me, I voted for Cardinal Siri." Also, since your doubt made me think of it, I took Madrid to task on the Matatics vs. Keating brouhaha and left him stammering in fury (again)simply because he was caught contradicting himself and wouldn't 'fess up to it.