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.

Quote:Necessitatem sacrrifcii vis ipsa et natura religionis continet....Remotisque sacrrificii nulla nec esse nec cogitari religio potent. - Now the very essence of Religion implies Sacrifice. For the perfection of Divine Worship is found in the submissive and reverent acknowledgment that God is the Supreme Lord of all things, by Whose power we and all our belongings exist. This constitutes the very nature of Sacrifice, which, on this account, is emphatically called a “thing Divine.” If Sacrifices are abolished, Religion can neither exist nor be conceived. (§10)

Quote:Religion...denotes properly a relation to God....Religion has two kinds of acts. Some are its proper and immediate acts, which it elicits, and by which man is directed to God alone, for instance, sacrifice, adoration and the like. But it has other acts, which it produces through the medium of the Virtues which it commands, directing them to the honor of God....Accordingly to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation is an act of religion as commanding...

Quote:It is a dictate of natural reason that man should use certain sensibles, by offering them to God in sign of the subjection and honor due to Him, like those who make certain offerings to their lord in recognition of his authority. Now this is what we mean by a sacrifice, and consequently the offering of sacrifice is of the natural law.

Quote:Just as the greatness of Mary, all her privileges and all that is the source of her glory today, came to her through her divine Motherhood, the dignity of the priest, his privileges and his duties come to him through his sharing in the priesthood of Christ, which he realizes in essence when he pronounces the words of consecration during the celebration of the holy sacrifice of the Mass. His priestly character, his virginity, his intrinsic power over the sacraments and the mystical Body of our Lord Jesus Christ derive from the power over His Body and Blood given by our Lord Himself.

Quote:In the divine sacrifice accomplished in the course of the Mass, Christ, who offered Himself upon the altar of the Cross, shedding His blood for us, makes a bloodless sacrifice. It is the same Victim, it is also the same priest...idem nunc offerens sacradotum ministerio. He offered Himself on the Cross, He offers Himself now through His ministers, only the way of oblation differs. (Conc. Trid., Session 22, Canon 2, D2. 940.)

Quote:The nature of man being such that he cannot easily or without some external aids rise to meditation on divine things, the Church, as a good Mother, has established certain practices, such as speaking parts of the Mass quietly and others aloud; and in accordance with the discipline and tradition of the Apostles it has introduced such ceremonies as mystical blessings, lights, incense, ornaments and many kindred things so as, in that way, to signify the majesty of so great a sacrifice, and to raise the souls of the faithful by these outward signs of piety and religion to the contemplation of the great things hidden in this sacrifice.

Quote:It is this lofty doctrine that the Church has in mind when she calls her ministers to a life of asceticism and adjures them to celebrate the eucharistic Sacrifice with deep piety. Is it not because of a failure to grasp the close, reciprocal bond which unites the daily offering of one’s self to the offering of the Mass that priests have gradually come to lose the first fervor of their ordination?

Quote:To end with a practical conclusion. It is not possible to urge too strongly on interior souls the need for a great devotion to the Consecration, which is the very essence of the sacrifice of the Mass and the most solemn moment in our every day. Jesus, when He instituted the Eucharist, raised His eyes to heaven, His face lit up and He longed to annihilate Himself in some degree under the species of bread and wine to all eternity that He might thus remain really and substantially among us in giving Himself to us as food. Thus, at the moment of Consecration, the priest, Minister of the universal Mediator, must follow His example, lifting up his eyes to heaven in an ardent desire to unite himself with the oblation of the ever living Christ who does not cease to intercede for us and, with Himself, offer to His Father all the living members of His Mystical Body, especially those who follow His example of suffering (The Love of God, p. 771).