From the Archived Catacombs:

New Article coming from the Menzingen General House priming the General Chapter -- mascots ABL to push roman thought. 

The theme: "The Society of St. Pius X must seek pontifical recognition..."

Law is the principle concern and the faith is optional to put in the chaos of the conciliar Vatican.

Object: Get peoples mind off of the pre-1988 Menzingen to dwell on the 2018 conciliar Menzingen.

This is a reminder Bishop Fellay already set the stage and unveiled the new change of structure for the neo-sspx here  thecatacombs.org/thread/335/bishop-fellay-unveils-sspx-prelature

For them, there is no going back.

Quote:Source: FSSPX.news

Jan. 16. 2018

What will happen at the General Chapter of the Fraternity of St. Pius X?

From July 11 to 21, will be held the fourth General Chapter of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.

Many Catholics are worried about the evolution of the Vatican. The discussions around the post-synodal exhortation Amoris laetitia or the attacks on priestly celibacy in the perspective of the announced synod on the Amazon leave the faithful perplexed.

Cardinals stand against other cardinals, bishops against bishops. Not many Catholics of good will today recognize that Archbishop Lefebvre was right. That is why the eyes of many - even outside the ranks of traditionalists - are turning to the General Chapter.

The Bulletin of the District of Germany met with the Secretary General of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, Father Christian Thouvenot, in charge of the preparation of the Chapter.


Mitteilungsblatt: We would like to inform the faithful of the progress of the 2018 General Chapter. Could you begin by introducing yourself and explaining your role at the General House?

Christian Thouvenot: I have been a priest since the year 2000 and has been Secretary General since 2008. My job is to follow the correspondence of the General House with the seminaries and the districts, as well as with the members, to keep to day the files of the members priests, brothers, oblates and seminarians. I take care of the register of the deliberations of the General Council and transmit its decisions to the superiors concerned. I also take care of the archives and the communication of the Fraternity.

The Brotherhood is led by a Superior General, assisted by two Assistants, all three elected?

Indeed, the Brotherhood is led by three superiors elected for a twelve-year term. Their attributions concern the smooth running of the fraternity, the organization of the apostolate, the nominations throughout the world, etc. They must be careful, according to the Statutes, to maintain and increase in the hearts of all members "a great generosity, a deep spirit of faith, an ardent zeal in the service of the Church and souls". They have their home in Menzingen, where they can rest between two apostolic races but also work, pray, study ...

The Brotherhood has had a good growth in recent years. You published some statistics recently. Can you tell us more?

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X is growing slowly but steadily. Everywhere, the works need support and renewal of their strengths. That is why it is important to always ask and pray for many priestly and religious vocations, especially many holy priests.

Let's come to the Chapter ...

Next July will be held the fourth General Chapter of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. This meeting is important since it elects the major superiors for twelve years, and verifies if the Society remains faithful to its statutes and its spirit. It is an opportunity to take stock of the apostolate, the development of the works, the life of community, the means of sanctification of the members. It will take place at the seminary Saint-Pie X, in Ecône. It brings together all the superiors of districts and seminaries, the bishops, as well as the oldest members. It will be preceded by a priestly retreat to prepare well.

What is the task of a Chapter?

As I told you, the Chapter aims to elect major superiors and verify the application of the statutes. On the occasion of the Chapter, all the members were able to write to the General Secretariat to express their opinion, their wishes or to express their difficulties. All these opinions will be the subject of summaries and discussions in the Chapter.

Who can be elected Superior General?

Can be elected any member priest, aged at least thirty years and having pronounced his perpetual engagement in the Fraternity. This represents a list of eligible 462 names! The Superior General is elected by a 2/3 majority, and the Assistants by an absolute majority of votes. The elections, in which the 41 capitulants take part, are held in secret ballots.

The statutes drafted by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre provide that the Superior General must seek the pontifical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X. Will the question of a personal Prelature be discussed?

Indeed, our statutes provide that the fraternity makes "the necessary steps to become of pontifical right". This was the concern of Archbishop Lefebvre, against the unjust and illegal suppression of the Brotherhood in 1975, and at the time of the proposals of canonical recognition he formulated in 1987. But this question of our legal status is a consequence of the abnormal situation of the Church and the bad trial that is done to us. We are Roman Catholics, deeply united with the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church, but in the Catholic faith. We follow the pope, vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter, not Luther or Lamennais. We recognize the magisterium, the authority of the Roman Pontiff and Councils, but in the continuity of Tradition, not in the novelties that corrupt the faith, the liturgy and the doctrine of the Church.

To answer your question, it is likely that the question of personal Prelature status will be asked at the Chapter. But it is the Superior General alone who leads the Fraternity and who is responsible for the relations of Tradition with the Holy See. Archbishop Lefebvre, in 1988, wanted to clarify this aspect.

In your opinion, what are the other important themes for the life of the Fraternity to which the General Chapter will have to respond?

The Chapter will examine all aspects of daily life, check the management of the property, will certainly address the issues of recruitment, perseverance, schools, missions, development of works and the application of the statutes in our communities .

The heart of the fraternity is the seminaries. What problems arise and need to be solved? You were previously in higher education, so you had to deal with students ...

The seminars are indeed at the heart of the life of the Fraternity, which is primarily a work of restoration of the Catholic priesthood, and therefore training to give the Church the priests it so badly needs. The priority is to provide a good level of training, and therefore to have a competent faculty. Which must also be able to accompany the vocations so that they climb one by one the steps of the altar and cultivate the priestly virtues.

The Sisters of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X also have their General Chapter this year ...

The Sisters of the Society of St. Pius X will effectively hold their own Chapter in the spring. They serve magnificently alongside priests and their religious life brings a lot to priory and schools where they are dedicated.

What can the faithful do for the Chapter?

The faithful are invited to pray now for the intentions of the Chapter, and more broadly for the development of the Fraternity as a work of Church, as its venerated founder has desired. In particular, I think of the members of the Third Order who share more closely our spirit and our intentions, who often dedicate themselves in the priory and bring daily suffrage of their prayers to this providential work.

From the Archived Catacombs:

Bishop Fellay unveiled, in part, his agreement with conciliar rome in two public venues: Aug. 24, 2016 Conference in New Zealand, and March 3, 2017 Sermon in Poland.

Between the two, in his own words, here is what he said:

• Rome is offering us a new structure, a new body, to correspond precisely to our reality. 
  
• And what is our reality? There are priests, bishops, faithful, we have priors, schools, seminaries, and what Rome wants to do is to give us a structure that contains all this. Like a diocese.
  
• The name given to this reality is a personal prelature.
  
• But the reality is much better than what we find in canon law or what exists for the opus Dei. Because Opus Dei has no right to have a bishop. It is only at the Pope's pleasure to decide whether or not he gives him a bishop.
  
• For us, it is determined, it is written.
  
• At its head will be a bishop, chosen by the Pope from a list of three Society members, named by the Society.
  
• The Bishop will have authority over priests, over any religious wanting to join the new structure and over Catholics belonging to the new structure.
  
• It is also planned that the other bishops of the Fraternity will be auxiliary bishops in this Prelature. And everything that currently exists will be recognized worldwide.
  
• And the faithful too! They will be in this prelature with an absolute right to receive from Society priests all the sacraments and teachings, including marriage.
  
• The bishop will be able to set up schools and seminaries, to ordain (priests), to establish new religious Congregations.
  
• And it will also be possible to receive religious congregations, as in the dioceses: Capuchins, Benedictines, and all the others, Carmelites, everything.
  
• The structure will be like a super-diocese, independent of all local bishops. This is a Christian reality which is not under the authority of the bishops. It is autonomous. So, really, it's a very important thing."
  
• In other words, for you faithful, there will be no change from what you are already enjoying with the Society.
  
• The only difference will be that you will be officially recognized as Catholics.
  
• It is not a trap!  As things stand you cannot imagine anything better than this offer, which is such that you cannot think it is a trap. It is not a trap , and if anyone makes us such an offer it can only be because he wishes us well. He wants Tradition to prosper and to flourish within the Church. It is impossible that such an offer could come from our enemies. They have many other ways to crush us, but not that way.
  

• A “new structure, a new body” means that Archbishop Lefebvre’s structure
  for the Society will, essentially, be abandoned. Rome is creating a
  completely new entity. Good-bye, dear SSPX.
  
• A “bishop chosen by the Pope” is extremely important. And the head of the “new structure” will presumably go on being chosen by the Pope. Ask the Fraternity of St Peter what that means. It meant in the 1990’s their own choice of Superior General being overridden by Rome, so that Rome’s own choice was forcibly installed (Fr. A. D.), to bring St Peter’s to heel.
  
• Note also how this bishop will be able “to ordain (priests)” but not
  bishops. Rome will thus retain the whip-hand over the new entity.
  
• “There will be no change”? But of course there will! Rome will henceforth be in control.
  
• “You will be officially recognized” – but what Catholic needs any
  recognition by such destroyers of the Church from her present
  neo-modernist officials? Any such recognition can only be a bad sign.
  
• "You will receive the sacraments and teachings from the society priests"  But what Sacraments and teachings?  Already there are mergings of the traditional sacraments with the novus ordo and acceptances of Vatican II teaching.
  
• “Not a trap . . .”? This whole paragraph is truly remarkable."  Need say more?
  

• The new and entire 1983 Code of Canon law.
  
• The new Profession of faith by Vatican II.
  
• The legitimacy of the novus ordo "ordinary mass".
  
• "Lumen Gentium" of the Second Vatican Council [in part is to whole].
  
• "95% acceptance" of Vatican II.
  
• Vatican II “deepens” and “enlightens” certain aspects of Church doctrine.
  
• “Religious Liberty of the Council is limited”.
  
• “The errors of the Council are not really from the Council but from the general interpretation of it.”
  Vatican II Council is only “tainted with errors”.
  

Quote:"Obviously, most are not exactly sure what a prelature is or does.

...A prelature is not a reward. Do you really know the circumstances of a prelature? I would rather be an FSSP [Fraternity of St. Peter] than belong to a prelature.

A prelature is governed directly by the pope. The FSSP is not governed by the pope. They have their own superior general.

The prelature will have statutes and constitutions handed to it by the Vatican. Prelatures do not get to write their own statutes, as do societies of apostolic life and religious communities. The statutes are written at the Vatican, given to the prelate to comment, edited, if the prelate has something good to contribute and then sent to the pope for final approval. He issues the constitution of the prelature. The FSSP writers its own statutes, votes on them and sends a copy to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The Sacred Congregation reviews the constitution to ensure that it meets all the requirements of Canon Law and that there is no doctrinal error in it. The Sacred Congregation does not care if the constitution says that you will dance around the altar for morning and evening prayer, since such an action does not violate canon law, dogma or morals. They sign off on it and send it back to the Superior General of the FSSP. The SSPX will be in a closer relationship with the Holy Father, but it also has to make sure to cross its tees and dot its eyes.

The FSSP gets to elect its superior general. A prelature does not get to elect the prelate. The prelate is appointed by the pope. Remember the word, "personal prelature". The personal refers to the pope. You're stuck with the prelate that the pope appoints. He can appoint any bishop, not just an SSPX bishop.

The FSSP does not have to own property; therefore, it does not have to raise funds to maintain and insure their property. The FSSP hires itself out to a diocese or a religious community who provide the property. If the collection plate is not enough to fix the leaky rood, the owner of the proper, usually the diocese, will bail them out with a loan or just pick up the tab. The prelature owns all of its buildings and is financially responsible for them. It gets no financial support from the diocese. If it needs to borrow from a bank, the diocese does not serve as its cosigner.

The prelature can have its own seminary. So can the FSSP. No difference there.

The FSSP has to ask for permission to enter a diocese, so does the prelature.

The FSSP does not have ordinary jurisdiction over those who attend their mass or belong to their parish. That jurisdiction belongs to the bishop where the person resides. This is a good thing. The FSSP is not responsible for the salvation of their souls. If these folks follow the wide road, because the priest suggested it, the person goes to heaven, regardless of what he did, because he was obeying. The priest may not be so lucky and neither will the bishop for allowing it to happen, provided he knows. However, the FSSP is not accountable, only the priest involved. The prelature has ordinary authority over the laity. Guess who is morally responsible for the laity . . . bingo! The prelature, not the local bishop, not the FSSP.

The FSSP is a society of Pontifical Right. This means that it has the same right of exemption as I do. Bishops cannot discipline a member of the FSSP. The laity has no right to comment or voice an opinion on anything that happens with the FSSP, unless it directly affects them. Remotely does not count. Directly we mean that the FSSP priest is being ugly to you. If the FSSP priests decide to have happy hour every day, that does not directly affect the laity, even though it may be shocked. That's a problem for the superior of the FSSP. If the SSPX decides to have a happy hour and there are complaints, the prelate has to deal with them and he has to inform the pope. The superior general of the FSSP does not have to report to the pope, unless the pope calls him in.

A prelature is like a diocese without physical boundaries. It certainly has many other boundaries and a lot more oversight from the Vatican.

The key here is that if Pope [Francis] truly did say that this is the only way to come back into the Church and the SSPX rejects it, we may be facing a schism, depending on how the Holy Father takes the rejection.

====================================

This is another misunderstanding. No community is allowed to refuse its members permission to celebrate the OF in principle. This was not just for the FSSP. The Franciscans of the Immaculate wanted to insert the same thing into their constitution and were told that it was unlawful to do so. The logic is that no community has the authority to command what the Church requires or prohibit what the Church allows in spiritual and sacramental matters. Even orders that have their own rite: Carmelite, Dominican, Carthusian and orders that have their own forms of the Latin Rite: Franciscan, Augustinian, Benedictine, Jesuit cannot prohibit the OF in the way that it is prescribed in the GIRM. What we are allowed to do is to decide that we will use this or that form for our conventual mass, not we cannot tell our priests that they cannot celebrate the OF. The conventual mass does not apply to the FSSP, because they are secular Catholics.

In the case of the EF, religious superiors and superiors of societies of apostolic life can prohibit it. Constitutions can prohibit it, because the EF is not the norm for the Latin Church as long as the pope says that it is extraordinary. The Pauline mass is the normal form of worship. Therefore, it cannot be prohibited. They can agree not to celebrate it. They cannot make it proper law. None of us can do that.

It was not the pope who intervened. It was the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. All constitutions are reviewed by the Sacred Congregation to make sure that they do not violate law or doctrine. Many times, when people say, "The pope. . ." it's really a prefect acting in the name of the pope. Prefects have that authority.


==============================

Q. Yes religious who are of pontifical right get to write their own constitutions and elect their superior yet both of those need the approval of the pope to go into effect.

A. Not quite. I'm a superior general and I know. The constitutions are reviewed by the Sacred Congregation for the reasons that I stated above. The Holy Father does not see them. When the Sacred Congregation agrees to approve the constitution, it sends a letter to the pope asking for his endorsement. All the letter says it that it has reviewed the constitution and found no doctrinal errors or canonical violations and it asks to pope to kindly promulgate the constitution. The pope signs the paper and sends it back. We get that paper sent back to us. Popes do not have time to read constitutions of religious communities or societies nor are they interested in doing so.

===============================

The FSSP operates within the diocese; whereas the SSPX is its own jurisdiction. This presents a problem for things like getting married or placing your child in a Catholic school. In many places you must belong to the diocese and you must prove it with a letter from your pastor. An FSSP pastor can grant such a letter. The SSPX priest can only say that you belong to his congregation. But his congregation is under the jurisdiction of the SSPX, not the local bishop. The local bishop does not run that chapel.

====================================

The SSPX is being offered a prelature. A prelature gives it the autonomy that the SSPX wants, but it also restricts because its activities must follow a constitution given to it from the Vatican. It cannot write its own constitution, because it's a prelature, not community. There can be a constitution for the priests and religious, but those constitutions cannot contradict the constitution of the prelature.

A prelature has a defined apostolic mission that must be approved by the pope himself, not by a general chapter alone and not by one of the sacred congregations. We don't know how broadly or how narrowly Pope [Francis] will define the apostolic mission of the prelature.

Then we must look at size. The SSPX has about 500 secular priests, which is a very nice number. The average diocese has less than 300. Maybe the megadioceses have more. That looks good. However, those 500 priests are limited to working inside the prelature, not with diocesan structures. Therefore, they will not be allowed to participate in deanery meetings, diocesan synods, clergy councils or conferences of bishops where pastoral decisions are made. They will not be allowed to contradict those decisions made by the host diocese or the conferences of bishops. In other words, the SSPX can have its own pastoral practices within its jurisdiction, but it cannot tell the people of Diocese X that such and such a pastoral decision is a bad thing. They belong to the prelature.

Let's remember that 500 secular priests are a large number for a diocese, not for an international organization. The Salesians and the Franciscans each have more than one million members. How many Salesians or Franciscans are in the average diocese? My point is that we're thinking that the influence of these 500 men is going to turn the Church around. That's not realistic.

The Church will turn around and problems will be solved. New ones will replace the old ones. The SSPX will bring a much needed charism into the Church, but it will stand side by side with the many other charisms that exist in the Church, as it should be. The SSPX is not being regularized to compete with other secular priests or with religious communities. They are being regularized for their own good and for the unity of the Church.

We truly need to keep this in focus. Let's forget about ourselves and let's think about these men and the unity of the Church. My biggest problem with this whole process is the selfish attitude of some people. They're all excited because what they want and what they like is finally being regularized.

It is nice to get what we want and what we like. Make no mistake about that. But at the end of the day, the Church does provide for our spiritual and sacramental life, without the SSPX. What is of greater value here is that we have almost 1,000 men and women (clergy and religious) who are living outside the fence, but on the same side of the street. They are our brothers and sisters and we should love them enough to want them on our side of the fence where they will be safe and where we can share what each of us has to offer.

Finally, it is a great insult to the more than five million male religious and diocesan clergy to say to us that the SSPX are going to fix the Church, as if we had made no contribution for the good of the Church.

There has to be a balance in our thinking and a greater concern for the good of our brothers and sisters in the SSPX rather than our personal wants and wishes. As St. Francis said to our brothers, "The man who has not detached from his wants and wishes is like the man who cannot pass through the eye of the needle. He is still rich."

============================

The FSSP is a Society of Apostolic Life with Pontifical Right. It has the same legal rights and duties as I do, except that I belong to an order and we get more graces. But you can't regulate graces. You can regulate rights.

The charism of a society of pontifical right is not determined by the Holy See, nor does the Holy See impose limits on societies of pontifical right, quite the opposite. Pontifical right gives the FSSP what Trent defined as the Right of Exemption. Normally, this is only for religious men. But Pope John Paul II granted it to the FSSP. This gives it the freedom to write its own constitution, define its mission and charism, modify its mission and charism at any time and to be free from Church control. The only person who can dictate to a institute of pontifical right, is the pope. The only time in recent history that the pope has done this is with the Legionaires of Christ. That last time before that, was Pope Leo XIII when he founded the Franciscans (OFM). That was in 1878.

The FSSP is pretty free.. However its charism may have changed, it is completely under the control of the general chapter, not the Church. Only a pope can overrule a general chapter.

=======================

Once it [sspx] is regularized, it will have a canonical status and that means that it will also have rights. One of those rights is the right of its superior not to allow anyone to leave.

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=683408&page=2

Quote:"2) In the August 2001 issue of Communicantes (former Canadian SSPX Magazine), there was published an interview conducted by Fr. de Tanouarn with His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay in which His Excellency spoke of a canonical structure proposed by Rome:

“You have no doubt heard talk of this idea of an apostolic administration. The Society of St. Pius X would have become incorporated into an apostolic administration. What does this signify? The apostolic administration ordinarily is a diocesan structure, or quasi diocesan, in a time of crisis, over a given territory. Well! For us this territory would be the entire world. In other words, they offered us a structure that covered the entire world, a kind of personal diocese…”

Q. Fr. de Tanouarn intervened:
“Excuse me for interrupting, Your Excellency, you mean a personal prelature…”

Bishop Fellay responded (this author’s emphasis in bold):
“Not at all. The apostolic administration is better than a personal prelature. In the first place, a personal prelacy is not necessarily governed by a bishop. An apostolic administration, which is quasi diocesan, normally would be. Furthermore, and above all, the action of an apostolic administration is not limited to its members. The Opus Dei, which is the personal prelacy that exists today, is not subject to the local bishop in all that concerns its members, but it could not consider any external action without the consent of the bishop. With the apostolic administration, we avoid this restriction. We would be able to take an autonomous apostolic action without having to ask authorization from the diocesan bishop, since we would have a veritable diocese, whose distinctive characteristic is that it extends to the entire world. It is very important that such a proposition has been made, because after all, this juridical solution has never happened before, it is ‘sui generis’. Now that it has been established, it can represent for us, from a juridical point of view, a reference, a position of comparison. Especially since it is to the Society of St. Pius X that this possibility has been proposed, which shows just how seriously Rome sees our resistance. It’s not by vainglory that I say that, believe me: symbolically (first of all, it’s not a question of numbers) we represent something very important for Rome, and this also is new.”

"3) In an interview conducted by Brian Mershon of The Remnant and published on February 18, 2009, His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay was posed the following question (my emphasis in bold):

Q. “Do you foresee any oversight by territorial diocesan bishops once the Society is regularized?”

His Excellency answered (this author’s emphasis in bold):
“That would be our death. The situation of the Church is such that once the doctrinal issues have been clarified, we will need our own autonomy in order to survive. This means that we will have to be directly under the authority of the Pope with an exemption. If we look at the history of the Church, we see that every time the Popes wanted to restore the Church, they leaned upon new strength like the Benedictine Cistercians whom the pope allowed to act as best as possible during the crisis, in a status of exemption, in order to overcome the crisis.”

Source: The Society of St. Pius X and the Diocesan Bishops www.therecusant.com/sspx-diocesan-bishops

From Archived Catacombs:

In another twist of shameful modernism influencing souls, the SSPX former self condemns yet again its present new self accepting the legal reform of the "Indult - Extraordinary mass" as a secondary means to salvation subservient to the "Ordinary form of mass" - the NOM, also called, the mass of "Pope Paul VI".

Bishop Fellay had, with a Te Deum, accepted the reformed law of the conciliar church to place the entire SSPX congregation under the law of the 2007 Moto Proprio  - "Extraordinary form of mass" -  highlighting the NOM is the supreme rule of worship and the Ordinary form for use of all Catholics in the church.  Thus, for the new-sspx, the legal footing to accept the "Extraordinary" mass is the SAME legal footing to accept the Indult mass.  Hitherto, the conciliar-sspx accepts it can be taken away from them under disciplinary laws, if not by, absolute rule removing the faculties of the priests not to say the latin mass...

To accept the Extraordinary mass (as the neo-SSPX did), there is a cum conditione (with condition) stated by pope Benedict in his letter, you accept the new mass as valid and legitimate (being the ordinary/first place of worship) and you also accept Vatican II.  They both go together.  One created the other, and one affirms the other.

Contained in an except from the old-sspx article "The Indult Mass: should one attend it at all?", there lies the principles one should NOT attend also the "Extraordinary" mass of the conciliar church.

Quote:Excerpt [Angelus 1994]:

The case of attending the traditional Mass said under the "Indult"

Despite all the efforts of the official hierarchy since 1969, a few bishops, many priests, and a great number of the faithful have remained attached to the two-thousand-year old traditional rite of Mass. Time passed but the problem remained. In order to resolve it, Pope John Paul II gave to the diocesan bishops the faculty of making use of an indult so as to allow priests to say and faithful to attend the Mass contained in the Roman Missal edited in 1962; the missal moreover used by the Society of St. Pius X. That was the indult promulgated by the Congregation for the Divine Worship on October 3, 1984,15 an indult we shall see hereafter, made unacceptable through the intention of its legislators and by the conditions of its application. The consecrations of June 30, 1988, occurring, Pope John Paul II made use of this with regards to the traditionalists.


Now, what about attending a Tridentine Mass celebrated under the indult?

First of all, it constitutes a danger for the faith of the faithful, a danger which comes from the priests themselves who are celebrating it. Because to obtain this indult from the official hierarchy, these priests must fulfill the following conditions:
   

• That it should be very clear that these priests have nothing to do with those who place in doubt... the doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI, in 1970 and that their position should be without any ambiguity and publicly known.[15]  [Ed. This, the new-sspx had surrendered to as well by accepting the Moto Proprio of 2007 - Extraordinary mass - and promotes their masses as such throughout their publications.]
  

Thus is it necessary that these priests prove publicly by their behavior, their words and writings, shorn of ambiguities, that they admit "the doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass. No question in any way whatsoever of criticizing the Protestant and definitely non-Catholic look of Pope Paul VI's New Mass.

Cardinal Mayer, former president of Ecclesia Dei placed in charge of re-integrating the Traditionalists in the Conciliar Church, added the following condition: these same priests "can obtain" this indult "on the condition that they be in normal juridical standing with their bishops or religious superiors." 16 One remembers that dozens of priests have been unjustly put out of their churches or their religious houses for the simple fact of continuing to say without change the Tridentine Mass, except for a good number of those who were favored by certain circumstances (age, distance etc.). May we ask these indult favored priests at what cost or compromise with the integral Catholic Faith have they kept or obtained "normal legal relations" with the hierarchy? Compromise which, for example, could appear in the fact of giving hosts doubtfully consecrated during a previous conciliar Mass or even through the manner of celebrating the traditional Mass full of hesitations and mistakes, sometimes even cause of scandal. [This too has the same legal precedent.  No priest can say the "Extraordinary mass" freely without permission in function and good standing with their diocesan bishop.  So in fact, the extraordinary mass IS an Indult in every legal way to function. - See the pope's attached explanatory letter to all the bishops in the world the interpretation of that 2007 Moto Proprio.  It leave the right of the bishops to exercise who what when how that "extraordinary form" will be said and where publicly.]

There is a danger too for the Faith, that comes from the proximity of the faithful who attend exclusively these indult Masses, because they also have to fulfill the conditions of not placing in doubt the "doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass.15 Characteristically, these type of faithful, unfortunately too often, are concerned with reconciling in thought and in action the truth with heresy, Tradition with the conciliar spirit. [ibid]

Secondly from the very nature of the indult: an indult is "a concession from the authority which dispenses its subjects from the obligation of keeping a law." 17 "The indult is an exception. It can always be withdrawn. It confirms the general rule" 18 which is the New Mass, the conciliar liturgy. Because, to use a special permission, is this not to recognize and legitimize ipso facto the general law, that is to say the legal suppression of the two thousand year-old traditional rite?  [ibid]

Indeed, to obtain the indult of 1984, one must fulfill the following conditions:

• that it should be quite clear that those priests and those faithful have nothing to do with those who place in question the legitimacy of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.[15]  [ibid]
  

 
Furthermore "this concession... should be utilized without prejudice to the observance of the liturgical reform (of Pope Paul VI) in the life of ecclesiastical communities"[15] of the Conciliar Church.  [ibid]

Therefore no question of them advertising for the universal usage of the Traditional Mass. They must be made to recognize that this Tridentine Mass was validly, legally and legitimately abrogated or forbidden. No question either or calling the worth, always actual, of the words of the Pope St. Pius V:

        By virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity, that for the singing or the reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal (that is to say, the Tridentine Mass), may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.[19] [cf. this article for more on this topic: The legitimacy of Quo Primum today]

The third point to tackle is this: to attend the "indult" Mass is at least to approve implicitly and to encourage the work of the destruction of Catholic Tradition undertaken by the official hierarchy. To prove this assertion, let us look first of all at the intentions of some of those responsible, to see some precise facts.  [ibid]

In the first place the intention of Pope John Paul II himself, using this indult to favor the winning over of "traditional Catholics" to conciliar Rome:

        The Holy See has granted... the faculty of using the liturgical books in use in 1962... It is very evident that, far from seeking to put a brake on the application of the reform (of the New Mass) undertaken after the Council (by Pope Paul VI), this concession is destined to facilitate the ecclesial communion (that is to say their reinstatement in the Conciliar Church) of people who feel themselves attached to these liturgical forms.[20]

What now of the intentions and hopes of Cardinal Mayer, former president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission? He said:

        There are grounds to hope that, with the concerted efforts on the part of all concerned a substantial number of priests and seminarians will find the strength to renounce a 'state of mind' which until now was full of prejudices, of accusations and of disinformation... We have good reason to believe that the charity with which the priests coming from Archbishop Lefebvre and returning into the Church will be received, will contribute greatly to the fulfillment of this hope that, following them, numerous faithful whom they had served up till then, would also return into the ecclesial communion (with the Conciliar Church) through their mediation. Sometimes a temporary solution may be necessary, such as allowing them the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass[21] (of Pope St. Pius V).  [ibid, always has been and continues today.  See here   The aims of the Ecclesia Dei: to Destroy Catholic Tradition  ]          

In the hands of the official hierarchy, the Tridentine Mass serves therefore as a temporary means and bait to attract the traditional priests and people and to destroy at the same time the work of Catholic restoration, started by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer and their priests. Means and bait to attract the traditional Catholics now considered as schismatics because they are no longer considered as "being in communion" with the present-day Rome, of liberal and modernist tendency. It is to be further noted that the Commission Ecclesia Dei could be generous for a time in the concessions granted to priests - a question of making them bite at the bait. But if through their "mediation" more or less conscious, their faithful do not return into the conciliar fold, it is to be anticipated that they will be judged as useless instruments and will find themselves either in the obligation to fulfill other conditions to keep that permission, or even to simply see the aforesaid permission withdrawn.  [ibid]

Let us now move on to some illustrating facts: having received the permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite, the Fraternity of St. Peter now see themselves threatened to accept giving communion in the hand[22] and saying the Mass of 1965, 22 having already accepted by one of their superiors, "all the documents of the Vatican II Council."[23] Hundreds of priests, seminarians and faithful have been lured with the Tridentine Rite and now are made to forcibly return to the ranks and the spirit of the Council.   [ibid]   This work of destruction continues by the approval of Indult Masses close to our important Mass centers... A good method to empty these last ones or at least to prevent them from developing.

        That is why, what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate from us the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.[18]     [ibid] 

To attempt to restore the traditional Mass without considering the historical context of the crisis of the Faith is to become a blind instrument in the hands of the conciliar hierarchy.     [ibid]


What final conclusion can we draw from all this?

That the precept of attending Sunday Mass is obligatory for all Catholics who have reached the age of reason (seven years old) but that some may be excused particularly those who are only near Masses "of Pope Paul VI" or to traditional Masses said under the "Indult." Why? Firstly, because of the danger for the faith coming either from the priests who celebrate or from the faithful who attend them; secondly, legitimization is given to the new liturgy and finally an approval more or less implicit of the work of destruction of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Tradition.   [Therefore, by the principles laid out here, Catholics are oblige to refuse the "extraordinary form" of mass regardless it may be a latin rite mass, it is surrounded and imbued in acceptance of the norms and Canon  laws of Vatican II.]


Source

Below is a translated excerpt from Fr. Chautard’s article, “ Le combat pour la messe “ (The Combat for the Mass) which can be found in the November 2010 issue of Le Chardonnet (the monthly bulletin of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet parish in Paris). Fr. Chautard is presently the rector of the SSPX University in Paris (L’Institut Universitaire Saint-Pie X).

Fr. Chautard’s explanation clearly shows why one should not attend SSPX Masses.

It has been nearly six years since Bishop Fellay signed and offered to Rome his Doctrinal Declaration. Since that time we have seen many changes in the SSPX: its [/url]re-branding, the SSPX in Argentina is formally recognized by the conciliar church, the SSPX asking the local diocesan priests to hear the marriage vows of SSPX parishioners, Fr. Paul Robinson preaching evolution with the full support of the SSPX, etc. to just name a few.

These do not include those events that are antecedent to the 2012 Doctrinal Declaration but which also speak to a shift away from the guiding principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, events such as the GREC meetings, the asking by Bishop Fellay of Pope Benedict XVI for the lifting of the excommunications in 2009 and the praise for the Motu Proprio of 2007.

But these antecedent events culminate in the Doctrinal Declaration. And by consequence, the fruits of the that Declaration are seen in the many errors and changes since that its signing in 2012. It is for these reasons that we are once again looking at that document. They say that hindsight is twenty-twenty. How much clearer things appear when in their proper context. The purpose of this thread is to serve as a reminder of WHY that Doctrinal Declaration has spewed so much error. And how the events that are unfolding and continue to unfold in the betrayal of the SSPX, the Chronology of its Suicide, are typified in this document:

Quote:

Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble

Presented to Rome
15th April, 2012

Translated from the text on La Sapiniere.

I
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.


II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)


III

1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.

2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."(3)

3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).

4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).

5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.

6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).

7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.

8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.


Notes--
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.

(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.

(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Dz. 3070.

(4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: “All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”

(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.

(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].”

(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.

(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.

(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.
[url=http://redirect.viglink.com?key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&subId=6872759&u=http%3A//www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012]www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012

• The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
  
  
• The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
  
  
• The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
  
  
• The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.
  
  
  

Archbishop Lefebvre:

Quote:"We should pray also for the faithful who maintain Tradition that they may always preserve a strong, firm attitude, but not an attitude of contempt for persons, insult to persons, insult to bishops. We have the advantage of possessing the truth - we are not at fault - just as the Church has the superiority over error of having the truth: that superiority is hers. Because we have the conviction that we are upholding the truth, that the truth must make headway, that truth must convince, it is not our person. It is not outbursts of anger, or insults to people, which will give added weight to truth. On the contrary, that could cast doubt upon our possession of the truth. Becoming angry and insulting shows that we do not completely trust in the weight of truth, which is the weight of God Himself. It is in God that we trust, in Truth which is God, which is Our Lord Jesus Christ. What can be surer than that? Nothing. And little by little that truth makes, and will make, its way. It must. So let us resolve that in our expressions and attitudes we shall not despise and insult people, but be firm against error- absolute firm, without compromise, without relaxation, because we are with Our Lord. It is a question of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the glory of the Blessed Trinity is at stake, not the infinite glory in heaven, but the glory here below on earth. It is truth; and we defend it at any cost, whatever happens ." (Archbishop Lefebvre, "A Talk to the Seminarians at Econe," September, 18, 1976, A Bishop Speaks)

Quote:The Church is a society wholly necessary for obtaining salvation. By that all may understand that Christ’s Church is the necessary society for obtaining salvation. Its necessity is as vital as that of sharing, and being united with Christ and His Mystical Body. It is wholly necessary, not only by virtue of our Lord’s precept, but as a necessary means, since, in the order of salvation designed by Providence, the communication of the Holy Spirit, the participation in truth and in life cannot be attained save in the Church and through the Church, whose head is Christ. That is the doctrine of the Church.

Quote:I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our Creator and Lord. [/url][url=http://redirect.viglink.com?key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&subId=6872759&u=http%3A//www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm]www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

Quote:These two schemata seek to embrace the general outlines of two concepts of salvation. They are deliberately summary so that they may not be regarded as creeds embodying all the essentials. Let us say once again-only schemata are in question, and the catechist may be assured of the suitability for our times of a presentation of salvation akin to that of the second schema; all the same he should beware of despising those who recognize themselves in the first schema.

Quote:The Lord’s Supper brings about, above all, communion with Christ. It is the same communion as that effected by Jesus during His earthly life when He sat down to table with sinners, a communion continued since the day of the Resurrection in the eucharistic meal. The Lord invites His friends to gather together and He will be among them.

Quote:In the same way we speak of the presence of an orator or of an actor, thereby implying a quality other than a simple topographical “being there.” To sum up, someone may be present by virtue of a symbolic action which he does not perform physically, but which others accomplish by faithful interpretation of his most deep-seated intention. For example, the Bayreuth Festival doubtless realizes a presence of Richard Wagner superior in intensity to what is shown in works or occasional concerts dedicated to the musician. It is in such a perspective, I believe, that we should regard the eucharistic presence of Christ.

Introduction

More than forty years ago—during the disastrous reign of Pope Paul VI, the latest candidate for a Vatican-issued Halo Award, by the way—my father, Walter L. Matt, organized the first large scale public reception in the U.S. for the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

It was held at the Radisson South Hotel, Minneapolis, on Tuesday, May 12, 1976, and its stated purpose was to assist the Archbishop in gaining a stronger foothold for the Society of St. Pius X in the States during the unprecedented crisis Blessed Pope Paul had helped unleash on the Church.

On that occasion Archbishop Lefebvre delivered an address on the desperate state of the Church at that time—42 years ago—that was never transcribed or published until we did so for the December 15, 2017 print edition of The Remnant.

I’m posting the address here because I'm convinced the Archbishop’s words provide recent recruits to Tradition with vital historical context for the diabolical debacle that is the pontificate of Pope Francis. And for those of us who’ve been in the trenches for a long, long time it also provides welcome reminder of why we must continue to fight.

Even though I personally was in attendance back in 1976 when Archbishop Lefebvre delivered this address in Minneapolis, I was only ten years old and of course didn't realize how prophetic he was on that occasion, or how devastated by the Second Vatican Council, the New Mass, and the Freemasonic infiltration of the Vatican. In fact, this transcript reads like a message of encouragement at a crucial moment in the history of this movement—Stay in the fight! Keep the Faith. Never surrender!

This address also makes it absolutely clear that everything Archbishop Lefebvre did was part of an eleventh-hour defence of the Kingship of Christ (ignored completely by the Second Vatican Council) and a desperate last stand for Tradition, the infallible teachings of Mother Church and of course her ancient liturgy.  And now that Pope Francis has inadvertently unmasked the true spirit of Vatican II, it becomes obvious how and why those who resisted that spirit were right to have done so and will certainly be hailed by history as the heroic band of Catholic brothers that mounted the twentieth century’s last stand for Christ the King and, while scorned and mocked at the time, were nevertheless totally vindicated fifty years later. May we continue to earn the right to stand with them today. MJM

Angelus Online
February 1981


In I Accuse the Council  [...] His Grace describes this letter as follows:
"A year after the Council, the faith of many Catholics was so unsettled that Cardinal Ottaviani asked every bishop in the world and all Superiors General of orders and congregations to reply to an enquiry on the dangers which threatened certain fundamental truths of our Faith. It seems to me to be opportune to make public the reply which I made as Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost and of the Sacred Heart of Mary."

The most notable feature of the letter is its date (20 December 1966), which shows that Archbishop Lefebvre saw clearly, only a year after Vatican II ended, the many problems resulting from the Council—problems which have since been felt by millions:

Quote:Rome, 20 December 1966

Your Eminence:

Your letter of 24 July concerning the questioning of certain truths was communicated through the good offices of our secretariat to all our major superiors.

Few replies have reached us. Those which have come to us from Africa do not deny that there is great confusion of mind at the present time. Even if these truths do not appear to be called in question, we are witnessing in practice a diminution of fervour and of regularity in receiving the sacraments, above all of the Sacrament of Penance. A greatly diminished respect for the Holy Eucharist is found, above all on the part of priests, and a scarcity of priestly vocations in French-speaking missions: vocations in the English- and Portuguese-speaking missions are less affected by the new spirit, but already the magazines and newspapers are spreading the most advanced theories.

It would seem that the reason for the small number of replies received is due to the difficulty of grasping these errors which are diffused everywhere; the seat of the evil lies chiefly in a literature which sows confusion in the mind by descriptions which are ambiguous and equivocal, but under the cloak of which one discovers a new religion.

I believe it is my duty to put before you fully and clearly what is evident from my conversations with numerous bishops, priests and laymen in Europe and in Africa and which emerges also from what I have read in English and French territories.

I would willingly follow the order of the truths listed in your letter, but I venture to say that the present evil appears to me to be much more serious than the denial or calling in question of some truth of our faith. In these times it shows itself in an extreme confusion of ideas, in the breaking up of the Church's institutions, religious institutions, seminaries, Catholic schools—in short, of what has been the permanent support of the Church, but it is nothing less than the logical continuation of the heresies and errors which have been undermining the Church in recent centuries especially since the Liberalism of the last century which has striven at all costs to reconcile the Church with the ideas that led to the French Revolution.

In the measure in which the Church has opposed these ideas, which run counter to sound philosophy and theology, she has made progress; on the other hand, any compromise with these subversive ideas has brought about an alignment of the Church with civil law with the attendant danger of enslaving her to civil society.

Moreover, every time that groups of Catholics have allowed themselves to be attracted by these myths, the Popes have courageously called them to order, enlightening, and if necessary condemning them. Catholic Liberalism was condemned by Pius IX, Modernism by Leo XIII, the Sillon movement by Saint Pius X, Communism by Pius XI, and Neo-Modernism by Pius XII.

Thanks to this admirable vigilance, the Church grew firm and spread: conversions of pagans and Protestants were very numerous; heresy was completely routed, States accepted a more Catholic legislation.

Groups of religious imbued with these false ideas, however, succeeded in infiltrating them into Catholic Action and into the seminaries, thanks to a certain indulgence on the part of the bishops and the tolerance of certain Roman authorities. Soon it would be among such priests that the bishops would be chosen.

This was the point at which the Council found itself while preparing, by preliminary commissions, to proclaim the truth in the face of such errors in order to banish them from the midst of the Church for a long time to come. This would have been the end of Protestantism and the beginning of a new and fruitful era for the Church.

Now this preparation was odiously rejected in order to make way for the gravest tragedy the Church has ever suffered. We have lived to see the marriage of the Catholic Church with Liberal ideas. It would be to deny the evidence, to be willfully blind, not to state courageously that the Council has allowed those who profess the errors and tendencies condemned by the Popes named above, legitimately to believe that their doctrines were approved and sanctioned.

Whereas the Council was preparing itself to be a shining light in today's world, if those pre-conciliar documents in which we find a solemn profession of safe doctrine in regard to modern problems had been used, we can and we must unfortunately state that:

In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.

The transmission of the jurisdiction of the bishops, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last ends, etc.—on all these fundamental points the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous texts of the Council on these truths will henceforward permit doubt to be cast upon them. The consequences of this have rapidly been drawn and applied in the life of the Church:

• Doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations.

• Doubts on the necessity for and nature of the "conversion" of every soul involve the disappearance of religious vocations, the destruction of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the uselessness of the missions.

• Doubts on the lawfulness of authority and the need for obedience, caused by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience and liberty, are unsettling all societies beginning with the Church—religious societies, dioceses, secular society, the family.

Pride has as its normal consequence all the concupiscences of the eye and the flesh. It is perhaps one of the most appalling signs of our age to see to what moral decadence the majority of Catholic publications have fallen. They speak without any restraint of sexuality, of birth control by every method, of the lawfulness of divorce, of mixed education, of flirtation, of dances as a necessary means of Christiant upbringing, of the celibacy of the clergy, etc.

• Doubts on the necessity of grace in order to be saved cause baptism to be held in low esteem so that for the future it is to be put off until later, and occasion the neglect of the Sacrament of Penance. Moreover, this is particularly an attitude of the clergy and not of the faithful. It is the same with regard to the Real Presence: it is the clergy who act as though they no longer believe by hiding away the Blessed Sacrament, by suppressing all marks of respect towards the Sacred Species and all ceremonies in Its honor.

• Doubts on the necessity of the Church, the sole source of salvation, on the Catholic Church as the only true religion, emanating from the declarations on ecumenism and religious liberty, are destroying the authority of the Church's Magisterium. In fact Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis.

Thus, driven to this by the facts, we are forced to conclude that the Council has encouraged in an inconceivable manner the spreading of Liberal errors. Faith, morals and ecclesiastical discipline are shaken to their foundations, fulfilling the predictions of all the Popes.

The destruction of the Church is advancing at a rapid pace. By giving an exaggerated authority to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself powerless. What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter, and he alone, can save the Church.

Let the Holy Father surround himself with strong defenders of the Faith: let him nominate them in the important dioceses. Let him by documents of outstanding importance proclaim the truth, search out error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of calling in question the pastoral dispositions of the Council.

Let the Holy Father deign: to encourage the bishops to correct faith and morals, each individually in his respective diocese as it behooves every good pastor; to uphold the courageous bishops, to urge them to reform their seminaries and return to them the study of St. Thomas; to encourage Superiors General to maintain in novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of all Christian asceticism, and above all, obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a press informed by sound doctrine, associations of Catholic families; and finally, to rebuke the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. The Wednesday allocutions cannot replace encyclicals, decrees, and letters to the bishops.

Doubtless I am reckless in expressing myself in this manner! But it is with ardent love that I compose these lines, love of God's glory, love of Jesus, love of Mary, of the Church, of the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ.

May the Holy Ghost, to Whom our Congregation is dedicated, deign to come to the assistance of the Pastor of the Universal Church.

May Your Eminence deign to accept the assurance of my most respectful devotion in Our Lord.

+ Marcel Lefebvre,
Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia,
Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost.