Heretics validate the novus ordo and call its evils licit or valid in certain respects. Likewise with the sacraments. Forget it, null and void to all novus ordo and Vatican II. Trash it all. Heretics in SSPX and other traditionals believe that some outside the true church false religions can be saved. Never. The novus ordo also is a false religion and worships its leaders, other religions and mankind. They are a cult, not a Catholic faith. The Society of St. Pius X wants to be the savior of the novus ordo, but then they are deceivers themselves and they are also guilty of attacking the true catholic faith in part.

If the SSPX continues to decline in its upholding the truth and they finalize a pact with the dogs in the Vatican I will tell you not to attend their chapels anymore also and find other alternatives to fulfill Sunday obligations and Holy Days. Go to other traditionalists that are much more in truth and don't follow the unusual concepts of the SSPX that defy logic and true faith. Many of us have issues with them that are irreconciliable regarding the faith, morals, and the truth. They are getting to be more like the novus ordo heretics as time goes on and we hope they repent and turn back to Christ. Their bishops and leaders are in a cloud somewhere and the dust has to settle with the leaders and its clergy. Or they may continue to decline and fall into the pig sty with the novus ordo people. Be alert and aware of what lies ahead because we are tired of guessing what the SSPX is going to do or not do. If anyone from the Society or other traditionals tell you not to be sede vacante or go to sede vacante chapels, ignore them. The SSPV, CMRI and other independent sede vacante chapels are more in truth and while I cannot verify the licitness and validity of all their bishop consecrations and ordinations, I can in good faith apply truth to the law of belief is more on their positions than that of false traditional catholics and that includes SSPX due to their false beliefs on unchangeable dogma and doctrine. The SSPX takes novus ordo clergy to say their 1962 indults and they hang up pictures of heretics like John Paul II and Benedict XVI in their chapels. There are no excuses for any of the erroneous and heretical, schismatic positions they are taking. Fear included, that I speak of the Vatican pigs. I tell you to fear God only, not men, not the devil and his demons, not government and powerful worldly forces.

The Positions of The SSPX.

*to be continually updated* newest articles: Bishop Tissier De Mallerais of SSPX says Benedict XVI has taught heresies and more.

Bishop Fellay of the SSPX rejects Catholic dogma by teaching that Hindus can be saved.

Introduction to the positions of the SSPX:

Important Articles pertaining to the positions of the SSPX:
Other short news bulletins and very short comments pertaining to the SSPX:
Introduction to the positions of the SSPX:

The SSPX is a traditionalist order of priests founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The SSPX has many traditional Mass locations around the world, and is a major force influencing and providing sacraments for those who profess to be traditionalist-minded Catholics. We want to emphasize that the SSPX does many good things; it has been an avenue by which many have been introduced, and come back, to the traditional Catholic Faith. However, in various areas the SSPX’s positions are unfortunately heretical and contrary to the Catholic Faith. The SSPX holds and teaches that souls can be saved in non-Catholic religions, which is totally heretical.

Fr. Schmidberger, Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 10: "Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions, that is to say, if they are in invincible error."

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”

These statements constitute blatant heresy against the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Yet, they are printed in the very best-selling materials of the SSPX.

Also, while resisting the Vatican II apostasy, the SSPX maintains an allegiance to the manifestly heretical “Bishops” of the Novus Ordo/Vatican II Church. At the same time, however, the SSPX doesn't operate in communion with what it calls “the New Church” – the Novus Ordo Church – the Church of the Vatican II “Bishops” and “Popes” (who are actually Antipopes). Their position is a contradiction. It's an affront to Catholic teaching on three counts: 1) They recognize manifest heretics (the Novus Ordo Bishops and the Vatican II Antipopes) as Catholics who possess authority in the Church, which is heretical.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: "Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are "ipso facto" deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

2) The SSPX obstinately operates outside of communion with the Novus Ordo hierarchy, even though it recognizes it as the Catholic hierarchy. This is schismatic. In fact, the SSPX boldly refuses communion with the Novus Ordo Church (see below), even though it recognizes the Novus Ordo hierarchy as the true Catholic hierarchy!

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Declaration of August 2, 1976:
“For a grave problem does, after all, confront the conscience and faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI's pontificate. How can a Pope, true successor to Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, preside over the destruction of the Church, the deepest and most excessive of her history, in so short a space of time, what no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing?

All those enter into schism who cooperate in this realization of this upheaval and adhere to this new Conciliar Church, as His excellency Bishop Benelli designated it in the letter he addressed to me in the Holy Father's name last June 25th.” (Quoted in Sacerdotium)

Fr. Franz Schmidberger, former Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X:

“We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and identifies itself with the Novus Ordo Missae... the faithful indeed have a strict right to know that priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church.” (Quoted in Sacerdotium)

The Angelus, Official publication of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX):

“This current of renewal has given birth to a new church within the bosom of the Catholic Church, to that which Msgr. Benelli himself called 'the conciliar church,' whose limits and paths are very difficult to define... It is against this conciliar church that our resistance stands. We do not refuse our adherence to the Pope as such, but to this conciliar church, for its ideas are foreign to those of the Catholic Church.” (The Angelus, May 2000, p. 21.)

Thus, by its recognition of the Vatican II “Popes” and “Bishops” as the Catholic hierarchy, the SSPX is in communion with this “counterfeit Church.” At the same, the SSPX is in schism with this “counterfeit Church” because it blatantly refuses communion with the members of this Church, as we see above. (If it sounds contradictory and absurd, that's because it is.) The position is schismatic.

Canon 1325.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “One who after baptism... rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, (A.D. 110): "He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clean conscience." (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:50)

For decades now the SSPX has been obstinately working outside of communion with the Bishops and “Pope” it deems to constitute the Catholic hierarchy. This is schismatic.

St. Jerome, Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, (A.D. 386): "Between heresy and schism there is a distinction made, that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the Bishop." (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2:1371a)

3) The SSPX holds that the Catholic Church has become a "New Church," a modernist sect – a non-Catholic sect which is rife with heresy and apostasy – which is impossible. The Church is the immaculate Bride of Christ which cannot officially teach error.

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928:

“During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: 'The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 22), Dec. 11, 1925:

“Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, ex cathedra:“... knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: 'I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren (Lk. 22:32).'”

For instance, the SSPX even rejects the solemn canonizations of the Vatican II "Popes" it recognizes. This position is terribly schismatic, for it asserts that a true Pope and the Catholic Church have officially erred in canonizing saints.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23: “To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

Since so many have a high regard for the SSPX, they have been led into the same schismatic position.

Important Articles pertaining to the positions of the SSPX:

Bishop Fellay of the SSPX rejects Catholic dogma by teaching that Hindus can be saved.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Co., Feb. 18, 2006: “We know that there are two other baptisms, that of desire and that of blood. These produce an invisible but real link with Christ but do not produce all of the effects which are received in the baptism of water... And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

The SSPX rejects John Paul II's "Canonization" of Josemaria Escriva, thus revealing its Schism.

Fr. Peter Scott, Nov. 1, 2002, from SSPXs Holy Cross Seminary in Australia:“A typical example of this was the shameful and highly questionable canonization of Msgr. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer last October 6... 'After having pointed out that the process was uncanonical and dishonest, they had this to say: 'It (the canonization) will offend God. It will stain the Church forever. It will take away from the saints their special holiness. It will call into question the credibility of all the canonizations made during your Papacy. It will undermine the future authority of the Papacy'... Their letter will certainly turn out to be prophetic, for in time they will be proven to be right in their assessment concerning Escriva ... For all the reasons that they give, we cannot possibly consider this ‘canonization’ as a valid, infallible Papal pronouncement. We trust that he is in heaven, but we cannot possibly regard as a Saint this herald of Vatican II....” (SOUTHERN SENTINEL - No. 3 - November 2002)

Since they recognize that John Paul II was a true Pope, to reject his solemn “canonization” is clearly schismatic.

Bishop Richard Williamson of the SSPX says John Paul II was a “good man” and says the SSPX's religion is not the same as the Vatican II “Popes” it recognizes!

A. Bishop Williamson: I was a little surprised, at first, because some people had said he wasn't really in the running. After that, to tell you the honest truth, I don't expect a great deal from Rome as it stands. They are too far gone in the “New Religion,” and the “New Religion” is too radically different and distant from the True Religion. Rome is Rome, though, and I do believe there the popes are, and there are the cardinals, and that is where the official structure of the Church is to be found. But, I'm afraid, for the defense of the Faith, you've got to wait for some grave event to shake Rome and/or to drive the true cardinals out of Rome to start again somewhere else. I'm afraid that Rome is too deeply in the grips of the enemies of God.

This article shows that Bishop Williamson of the SSPX boldly states that he doesn't have the same religion as the “Pope” and “Bishops” he recognizes as the Catholic hierarchy! This, ladies and gentlemen, sums up the completely ridiculous – and schismatic – position of the SSPX, which is (for lack of a better description) so obstinately inconsistent that it is correctly labeled theological vomit.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22):

“As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”

The SSPX – an explanation of its heretical positions.

Was Vatican II infallible?

This refutes their position that they can reject Vatican II while accepting the Vatican II Antipopes.

Paul VI says that the New Mass and Vatican II are binding.

This also blows away one of the biggest false traditionalist myths which is held by the SSPX, that Vatican II and the New Mass were never imposed by the Vatican II Antipopes. Since Vatican II is heretical, and the New Mass is a false “Mass,” this is powerful proof that Paul VI was not the Pope.

A Critique of Is Feeneyism Catholic? by Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX) and the other SSPX books on salvation and baptism.

This critiques a number of the SSPX's books on salvation and baptism, including Is Feeneyism Catholic? In this outrageous work, the SSPX actually asserts the blatant lie and falsehood that the Council of Florence teaches baptism of desire!

Canonizations Are Infallible

This article further refutes the SSPX's position, and includes a section on the apostasy of Mother Theresa of Calcutta.

Bishop Tissier De Mallerais of SSPX says Benedict XVI has taught heresies.

"A. Bishop Tissier De Mallerais: It was when he was a priest. When he was a theologian, he professed heresies, he published a book full of heresies... Yes, sure. He has a book called Introduction to Christianity, it was in 1968. It is a book full of heresies. Especially the negation of the dogma of the Redemption."

This article also shows that Bishop Tissier rejects the concept of Church communion.

Other short news bulletins and short comments pertaining to the SSPX:

The Society of St. Pius X's book Most Asked Questions about the Society of St. Pius X says the Vatican II “Popes” CANNOT teach infallibly.

Most Asked Questions about the Society of St. Pius X, Question 7: But shouldn't we be following John Paul II?, pp. 38-40: “The Pope is infallible primarily in matters of faith and morals, and secondarily in matters of discipline (legislation for the Universal Church, canonizations, etc.) to the extent that these involve faith and morals (cf. Principle 4), and then only when imposing for all time a definitive teaching.

“Now infallible means immutable and irreformable (Principle 6), but, the hallmark of the conciliar Popes, like the Modernists, is a spirit of evolution. To what extent can such minds want irreformably to define or absolutely to impose? They do not and, in fact, 'they cannot...' (Archbishop Lefebvre, Econe, June 12, 1984.) Cf. Question 15, n.3.” (Angelus Press, 1997)

The Society of St. Pius X is not merely stating here that John Paul II did not fulfill the requirements to speak infallibly; the SSPX (writing during the reign of John Paul II) stated that he (the man they considered to be the true Pope) cannot speak infallibly.

For those who are for some reason not grasping the impact of this statement by the SSPX, allow us to summarize it: the SSPX correctly points out that an infallible teaching by a Pope on faith or morals is irreformable, as Vatican I declared (Denz. 1839). But according to the SSPX, the Vatican II “Popes” are such Modernists that they believe in the evolution of doctrine; they don't believe that anything is irreformable. So, according to the SSPX, even though they are valid Popes, the post-conciliar “Popes” CANNOT teach infallibly! This is a rejection of Papal Infallibility.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:

“...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.”

By definition, a Pope is the Bishop of Rome who possesses supreme jurisdiction in the Church and who CAN teach infallibly, if he fulfills the requisite conditions. If he is incapable of speaking infallibly, he is perforce not a valid Pope. To state that one can be a valid Pope and be incapable of speaking infallibly, as the SSPX does, is like stating that one can be a valid Pope and not hold supreme jurisdiction in the Church. It's a contradiction in terms, a rejection of one of the divine protections given to the occupants of the Papal Office, as defined by Vatican I.

All of these schismatic positions (e.g, the SSPXs rejection of "Canonizations" proclaimed by their “Pope”) and perversions of the Papal Office are a result of the SSPX's failure to see the truth of the sedevacantist position (i.e., that the Vatican II "Popes" are not Popes at all, but Antipopes).

Benedict XVI personally tells SSPX that it must accept Vatican II.

In his recent Conference in Denver in 2006 (carried in the recent article in The Angelus), Bishop Fellay of the SSPX mentioned a very important point. He admitted that, in his personal meeting with Antipope Benedict XVI, the Antipope made it very clear to him that the SSPX must accept Vatican II.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Conference in Denver, Feb. 18, 2006: “Then he [Benedict XVI] went to the second level. And he said that the second level is the acceptance of the Council...' ... The pope clearly indicated in the words he used during audience, that for him, it is impossible to accept someone in the Church, at least in his, let's say, modern way of looking at the Church, who would not accept the Council. He was very clear. When I heard these words there, and especially one word afterwards, for me, the big fight we will have under this pontificate will be the fight about the Council.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 15.)

How many times does this have to be proven? The false traditionalists need to give up their impossible position. They must reject Vatican II and the non-Catholic Antipopes who enforced it.

Regarding the claim of SSPX supporters that they just live a Catholic life, attend the SSPX (or some other independent chapel) and don't get involved with these issues, such as sedevacantism.

We frequently hear from people, especially supporters of the SSPX, that they are just laypeople who cannot get involved in these issues, such as the sedevacantist issue. They just go to Mass at the SSPX, support them and try to be good, spiritual people who live the Faith. This is the response of many SSPX supporters when confronted by sedevacantist arguments.

Okay, if that's the case – if you don't have the authority to get involved with these issues and you are just a “simple layman who goes to Mass” and tries to live the Catholic Faith – THEN YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ATTEND THE SSPX OR ANOTHER INDEPENDENT CHAPEL.

IF YOU ARE TOO SIMPLE TO "FIGURE THIS STUFF OUT" AND YOU CANNOT GET INVOLVED WITH THESE ISSUES – IF THAT IS YOUR POSITION (WHICH GOD FORBID) – THEN ACCEPT YOUR LOCAL NOVUS ORDO CHURCH, GO TO THE NEW MASS, AND ACCEPT VATICAN II, WHICH IS THE RELIGION APPROVED BY THE LOCAL NOVUS ORDO BISHOP. But “no,” the would-be “simple” layman who “just goes to the SSPX and tries to live a good life” and doesn't get involved in “these issues” all of a sudden gets involved in the issues and becomes a “theologian.” He “knows” that he cannot accept the New Mass and his local Novus Ordo religion. He thus condemns himself out of his own mouth, refutes his own argument and shows his hypocrisy by only “getting involved” where he wants to get involved.

For the bottom-line is that if one can accept the New Mass and Vatican II religion and save his soul then there is no justification whatsoever for going to an independent chapel or the SSPX. It's all a matter of preference, in that case. But if one holds that Faith obliges him to reject the New Mass and the Vatican II religion as something which will cause the loss of his salvation (which is the truth), then the local church and the New Mass (and the authorities who imposed it) cannot represent the Catholic Church. That leads one inescapably to the sedevacantist position, for the Holy Catholic Church can never lead us to hell.

So, the person must either: 1) return to the local Novus Ordo authorities or 2) correctly conclude that they don't represent the Catholic Church – the sedevacantist position. If he obstinately refuses, in the face of evidence and arguments, to come to appropriate conclusion that the Novus Ordo authorities who offer him this false religion are not Catholic and hold no authority in the Church (the sedevacantist position), this person condemns himself as a schismatic for going outside the diocese to the SSPX. His excuse that he is too simple “to get involved in all of these issues” and that he “just goes to Mass” and follows the SSPX priests obviously will not be accepted by God because then he would have been justified before God by simply following his local Novus Ordo parish.

All of this hopefully shows us again that the only Catholic position is, of course, the sedevacantist position, and that all the other false positions are heretical and schismatic, including the false position of the SSPX.

*Since the SSPX promotes heretical positions which are inconsistent with Catholic teaching, no Catholic can financially support them under pain of mortal sin.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: "Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend, or support heretics."

Is Lefebvrism Catholic?
Recently, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX – Lefebvrists) published two books attacking the teaching of the Church on Baptism. They spend their time trying to figure out ways for people to be saved without baptism – but to no avail. Baptism of Desire by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau was published by the SSPX in 1999, while Is Feeneyism Catholic? by Fr. Francois Laisney was published in 2001. The premise of these books - especially Is Feeneyism Catholic? - is that it is not Catholic to take John 3:5 as it is written. Such a premise not only condemns the teaching of the Council of Trent, that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written (as we have shown), but it literally means that you are not Catholic if you believe exactly what the following Magisterial teaching declares:

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Exultate Deo, 1439: "Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, 'enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water."

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925 (to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops): "Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration."
Here we see the Council of Florence authoritatively teaching that no one at all can be saved without water baptism, and Pope Pius XI teaching that no one can enter the kingdom of God without faith and the external rite of baptism (i.e., the sacrament administered in water). The Society of St. Pius X's books teach that these statements of Pope Eugene IV and Pope Pius XI are not Catholic. Anyone who obstinately promotes, defends or supports such a view (or the books) is a heretic, which unfortunately also includes the Society of St. Pius V, the C.M.R.I. and most other independent priests. One who would obstinately give financial support to such a group would also be a heretic, for then one would be supporting their heretical position, among others. All of these groups also believe that people can be saved in non-Catholic religions, which totally rejects the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The C.M.R.I. actually printed an article in their magazine, The Reign of Mary, entitled "The Salvation of Those Outside the Church." It is not possible to deny the dogma more directly.

Besides the heretical premise described above, there is much, much more that could be mentioned about the recent works of the Society of St. Pius X, especially Is Feeneyism Catholic? by Father Laisney. You don't want to miss our in-depth review of these books in issue #6 of our magazine, in the section on the Society of St. Pius X. But here we will just mention a few things about each book. Baptism of Desire by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau pretends to be an examination of the Church's teaching on what is necessary for salvation: the necessity of baptism, the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ, etc. Yet amazingly, in the entire book, the author does not quote one (I repeat, not one) of the ex cathedra (infallible) Papal statements on Outside the Church There is No Salvation! I guess he didn’t feel they were relevant? He did feel it important to mention, however, that Baptism of Desire can occur among paganism (BOD, p. 64); that justifying faith can come from false religions (BOD, p. 61); that it is an error to attribute infallibility to every document of the Magisterium (BOD, p. 9) – all of which is heresy!

The author also states that to refuse St. Thomas Aquinas is to refuse the Magisterium (BOD, p. 11)! This utterance is particularly absurd and quite hypocritical when we consider that the same author, when treating of whether implicit or explicit faith in Jesus is necessary to be saved (pp. 56-57), remarks that he's not sure what authority St. Thomas' opinion on this point holds – since St. Thomas says that explicit belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation and the Society of St. Pius X does not! So much for "to refuse St. Thomas Aquinas is to refuse the Magisterium."

As distressing as Baptism of Desire was, Fr. Laisney's book Is Feeneyism Catholic? Is even worse. For instance, there are these incredible statements of Father Laisney:
Father Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, pp. 47-48: "Moreover, the very Council of Florence, in the very same decree for the Jacobites (part of the bull Cantate Domino) mentions baptism of desire!… Thus far from being against Baptism of Desire, the very Council of Florence, the very bull Cantate Domino, teaches it as being ‘another remedy’ permitting a delay for adult catechumens for the reasons given by St. Thomas."
This is scary, especially from one who claims to be a traditional Catholic priest. The Council of Florence mentions absolutely nothing about baptism of desire! It mentions nothing of adult catechumens; and it mentions nothing of "baptism of desire" being "another remedy" "for the reasons given by St. Thomas"! These are all lies! And Fr. Laisney knows that this is true. But because he is so diabolically and uncontrollably biased and obsessed in his quest to prove that men can be saved without baptism, he could not refrain from adding them in – to his own perdition, if he does not convert. And then there are Fr. Laisney’s amazing contradictions:
Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 9: "... this is Baptism of Blood, which – the Church teaches – can save also little children dying with their parents for Christ."
Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic?, p. 22: "Note that an infant, not having yet the use of his reason, has no other possibility to be saved than through the actual reception of the sacrament of baptism, i.e., baptism of water."
Hello? On page 9 he asserts that infants can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism – by baptism of blood. On page 22 he assures us that "there is no other possibility" for infants to be saved other than the Sacrament of Baptism. Fr. Laisney cannot even avoid contradicting himself about what he says "the Church teaches" (page 9), let alone what the Church really teaches. The worst part of this mess is that Pope Eugene IV dogmatically defined that infants have no other remedy for original sin other than the Sacrament of Baptism, a dogma which Laisney quotes on page 47! - denies on page 9! - affirms on page 22! - and then denies again on page 77! This type of dishonesty, contradiction and heresy characterizes the books of the Society of St. Pius X on baptism and salvation.

Moreover, the SSPX – Lefebvrists continue to promote the heretical idea that people can be saved in false religions. The books by Archbishop Lefebvre, particularly Against the Heresies (pp. 216-218) and Open Letter to Confused Catholics (pp. 73-74) – two of the SSPX's best sellers – blatantly deny the dogma that men are saved only in the Catholic religion. In Against the Heresies page 216, Lefebvre writes: "Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.)..." Page 217 says: "One cannot say, then, that no one is saved in these religions..." Page 218: "When we say that (Outside the Church there is no salvation), it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell." Will anyone considering himself a "traditional Catholic" have the audacity to say that these statements from Lefebvre are not heretical? They are blatantly heretical! Anyone who would say that they are not heretical is a heretic himself who rejects the defined dogma "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation." No Catholic who knows that the SSPX teaches and promotes heresy, as we have just proven, can give them a penny of financial support if he desires to remain Catholic. The following words of Pope Gregory XVI could have been addressed specifically to the SSPX and those who defend the heretical teaching that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion.

SSPX Beliefs
Anyone who wants to be successful at rescuing or deprogramming someone who has fallen under the influence of the SSPX will have to understand SSPX beliefs, since from the point of view of the SSPX, their beliefs are what make them different from everyone else.
If you want to read a complete history of the SSPX, you'll find it elsewhere on this website SSPX-SCHISM.COM, where we ask the question: What is the SSPX? In this present discussion, we'll simply say that the SSPX is a group which had its beginnings in the Catholic Church, but which now forms a distinct group of Catholics who are unhappy with the changes made in the Church since John XXIII convened the general Council of Vatican II in the 1960's. The SSPX call themselves "Traditional Catholics" because they specifically adhere to the way things were in the Church and society at large before 1960.

It is a mistake however to think that SSPX supporters are only interested in nostalgia. You will find that their propagandists are well trained, and their arguments are well thought out. The first thing that strikes someone who has dealt with SSPX supporters for some time, as we have, is that they all talk exactly alike. In one case, we've had the experience of reading over a written defense of the SSPX by a certain SSPX supporter, only to find that it is almost word for word identical to comments made by other SSPX supporters. The arguments made by all SSPX supporters are so similar, that it's almost as if they've all read from the same training manual - or at least their leaders have. In another case, we've also had the experience of carrying on a written correspondence of several months with another SSPX supporter. In letter after letter, he kept repeating the same arguments, as if that was all he knew. He didn't seem to understand what we wrote to him, as he never directly answered what we wrote. In his answers to us he just kept repeating the same arguments each time. Besides concluding that he didn't understand what we were saying, we also wondered if he really understood what he was saying. He just kept repeating the same thing, as if the words themselves were supposed to have some magical ability to somehow "convert" us.

In presenting a brief outline of SSPX beliefs, we neither defend nor criticize these beliefs. It is not necessary for you to agree or disagree with any of the SSPX beliefs in order to be successful in rescuing an SSPX supporter. You only need to understand these beliefs.
Belief #1: The world is in a mess and disordered. There is a void of true leadership.
Belief #2: The best way to get out of the mess is to find an "Authority" who will give you "Answers".
We will see further below that for an SSPX supporter, their "Authority" is the SSPX, and their "Answers" are found in what the SSPX teaches.

An important point to note here is that it isn't really necessary for the external world to be in a mess or disordered for someone to seek out a group like the SSPX.

Belief #3: The Catholic Church has a God-given Mission to be His Official "Authority" with Official "Answers" for the human race.
Belief #4: The Catholic Church has been sidetracked from its God-given Mission by the changes brought about after Vatican Council II, held in the 1960's.

Belief #5: The Church, as it existed before Vatican II, has the "Answers".

Belief #6: The Pope can make a mistake, and proof of this is that he is directly responsible for the changes in the Catholic Church which have sidetracked the Church from its God-given Mission.
Belief # 6A: (secretly held by some SSPX leaders) The Pope can make mistakes in small things, but Pope John Paul II has done so much to harm the Church, that he cannot really be the Pope at all. Some SSPX leaders would also secretly admit that they believe that Pope John Paul II is intentionally trying to destroy the Church. They don't dare make their views public, for fear of losing the support (and money) of many of their followers. We have known about this tendency, called sedevacantism, within the SSPX, for some time. Finally, we have proof of it in writing, in the letter of Fr. Benedict Vander Putten, who recently left the SSPX.

Belief #7: Since Vatican Council II was a "Pastoral" Council, it was not infallible, and could include mistakes. In fact, Vatican II does contain mistakes that are directly responsible for sidetracking the Church from its God-given Mission.

Belief #8: The mistakes the Pope is making are not accidental, but come from the mistakes in Vatican II itself. Therefore, as long as the Pope is following Vatican II, we can't trust the Pope.

Belief #9: We can't trust the Pope, but God has given us the SSPX whom we can trust. The SSPX is our God-given "Authority" and is God's Official teacher and interpreter of the "Answers" that are found in the Church before Vatican II.
Belief #10: Archbishop Lefebvre was not really excommunicated when he consecrated four bishops on June 30, 1988 against the will of the Pope, and Canon Law (the lawbook of the Catholic Church) proves it. Forbidding Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate the four bishops, and believing that he was excommunicated for doing so, are just two more "mistakes" that the Pope has made.

Belief #11: Since the SSPX is God's Official "Authority" with God's Official "Answers", God will protect the SSPX and allow it to do whatever it has to in order to teach the "Answers" to others. So, if the SSPX needs to make changes to the "Answers", they do so with the authority of God Himself.

BUT, we must add a comment here. In fact, the Teachings of the Church before Vatican II did not change. So therefore, because the SSPX makes changes to the "Answers", the "Answers" are no longer the Teachings of the Church, but they are now SSPX Teachings. We will prove further below that the SSPX does make changes to the "Answers".
Belief #12: The fact that everyone, including the Pope, is against the SSPX is proof that the SSPX is on God's side, and everyone else is on the devil's side. Consequently, no-one outside the SSPX can be trusted or believed, since they are all against God's "Answers" and God's "Authority". SSPX leaders tell their supporters not to trust what they hear from their friends, family or the news media, as these are all influenced by Satan, who makes them all attack the SSPX.

These are the basic beliefs held by SSPX supporters. All these beliefs together form a complete belief system.

SSPX supporters believe that the SSPX is the only God-given "Authority" who can be trusted to teach the "Answers" given by God, which seem to be the Teachings of the Catholic Church before Vatican II, but in fact have been changed by the SSPX, and so are now SSPX teachings. Anyone who goes against the "Answers" or the "Authority" is going against God Himself.

SSPX supporters refer to their "Authority" as "The Society" and the refer to their "Answers" as "The Faith". A few things become immediately apparent from an understanding of SSPX beliefs.
The first is that it's best not to attack SSPX beliefs ("The Faith") or the SSPX ("The Society") directly, as this will only antagonize an SSPX supporter, when more than anything else, you need to gain their trust.

The second is that many of the SSPX arguments require an intimate knowledge of theology and Church Law, which is beyond the average person's training and experience. Because of this, many SSPX supporters merely memorize SSPX arguments without understanding anything about Church Law or theology, other than what they've been told by the SSPX leaders. Basically, very few SSPX supporters know enough theology to know whether the SSPX leaders are wrong or misleading them. Incidentally, the people who do know their theology eventually leave the SSPX. For those who remain in the SSPX, the words of the SSPX leaders become the only reliable source of information, especially since the SSPX leaders encourage all their supporters to cut themselves off from the news media and all non-SSPX supporters.

A third point is that SSPX supporters call themselves "Traditional Catholics" because they want to follow the Teachings and Practices of the Catholic Church before Vatican II. This gives a bad name to other "Traditional Catholics" who wish to follow pre-Vatican II norms, but who don't want to support the SSPX. The great irony is that since the SSPX has changed the "Answers", SSPX supporters don't follow the Teachings and Practices of the Catholic Church before Vatican II, but an SSPX version of them.

No doubt the SSPX supporter you are trying to rescue will give you several detailed arguments from Church Law and theology, defending the SSPX. Try to get the SSPX supporter to explain these arguments to you, rather than merely repeat them from memory. The point of this exercise is to get the SSPX supporter to realize that they are not really thinking but just memorizing pat answers.

As a final argument, you could say that God has given each of us an ability to think, and if we surrender that ability to think to someone else to do our thinking for us, then we become an intellectual slave, totally dependent on them. Elsewhere on this website, we have shown that someone who cannot or who will not think cannot have the Catholic Faith. Try to get the SSPX supporter to read this document, and explain how someone could have the Catholic Faith if they don't think for themselves. If they refuse to read it, then right away you can show them that they are closed-minded to finding out the Truth.

The SSPX claims to be traditional, yet they are doing things that no-one has ever done before in the Church. SSPX supporters will tell you how the SSPX is defending, following and teaching the Teachings and Practices of the Catholic Church before Vatican II. We have already stated above how very few SSPX supporters actually know enough about the Teachings and Practices of the Catholic Church before Vatican II to know if this is what the SSPX is actually promoting, or it is is merely a clever imitation.

Certainly, what the SSPX is doing looks good on the surface. For example, consider the Mass. We can't report on the USA, because no-one has given us specific information regarding the way the Mass is celebrated, but people in Canada have reported to us that the SSPX priests are slowly making changes to the Mass that were never done before Vatican II. These are small changes, like standing for the Sanctus, but if you look in an old Missal, you will see that it clearly says that everyone should kneel for the Sanctus. The SSPX is making small changes now, and the people accept them. Who knows where future changes will lead. The mere fact that the SSPX makes any changes to the Mass at all shows that they are not truly preserving things the way they were before Vatican II.

Another matter is the SSPX granting marriage annulments. The SSPX will grant a marriage annulment to Catholics who approach them, under condition that the married couple in question not approach any marriage tribunal of the Catholic Church, not even in Rome. No religious order in the history of the Church has ever taken upon themselves the authority to grant marriage annulments. This is an authority that belongs only to the Pope, and to the bishops he delegates this authority to. By granting marriage annulments without the permission of the Pope, the SSPX is doing something that was never an accepted practice in the Church. The only other person who tried this was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who granted an annulment to King Henry VIII, and this was the cause of the Anglican schism.

Let us for the sake of argument agree with SSPX supporters that Archbishop Lefebvre was not excommunicated because he consecrated the four bishops against the will of the Pope. However, even if you believe this, the SSPX is certainly now in schism because they are granting marriage annulments. By setting up their own marriage tribunals, the SSPX is setting up their own Church hierarchy in opposition to the Pope. And so, just like the Anglicans in the 1500's, this is schism, and the creation of their own parallel church.

The SSPX itself is illogical. The SSPX claims to be defending Catholic Tradition. But you don't defend Church Tradition by disregarding and disobeying that same Tradition. If you say that you are defending the rules, you must obey them yourself. If you make up the rules as you go along, then they are now your rules, and no longer the rules of Catholic Tradition.

You should not support the SSPX for various reasons.
The SSPX says their goal is to defend Church Tradition before Vatican II. The SSPX supporter has adopted that same goal.
The SSPX does not obey Church Tradition, but is opposing it and has placed itself outside the same Church it claims it is defending.
Therefore, the SSPX supporter is also not obeying Church Tradition, and is also outside the same Church they claim they want to be part of.

If you follow the SSPX command to cut off all ties with family and friends, then you are going against the commandment of God, of Jesus, and of St. Peter the first Pope. You can no longer consider yourself a Catholic or a Christian. Try to convince the SSPX supporter that this command of the SSPX proves that the SSPX is not from God.

As a Catholic you must only be a member of the Church not to a society or an organization. For SSPX supporters, their fixed point (their "Authority") is the SSPX. Yet we all know that because all humans are fallible in SOME respect, they can make mistakes, and if we refuse to recognize leaders' mistakes, then we can fall into error.

St. Paul had to deal with this problem with the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:11-13) who placed more importance on those who taught them the Gospel, rather than on the Gospel itself. This caused dissensions and schisms among the Corinthians. Stress with the SSPX supporter that there is only one Church. Anyone who wants to be Catholic must belong to the Church, and not to any group. "Just be Catholic" is good advice. This is basically the same advice that St. Paul gave to the Corinthians, although he didn't express it in these words. St. Paul wanted the Corinthians to stay out of groups and "just be Catholic".

An objective person must admit that the SSPX would have no followers at all if they were not right in some of the things they say. But just because the SSPX says some good things, doesn't mean that the SSPX can never make a mistake. SSPX supporters refuse to admit that the SSPX could ever make a mistake, but they think that somehow, the SSPX is "chosen" by God for some Divine Mission in the Church, and because of this, God will "protect" the SSPX from ever making a mistake. This is completely ridiculous. This also falls into the sin of Presumption, where someone gets so puffed up at their own God-given abilities, that they think themselves unable to ever be wrong. No-one who has ever lived on this earth, except for Jesus Christ, can claim that they could never make a mistake. What kind of pride is it to think that any organization, like the SSPX, can be equal to God?

SSPX supporters are also illogical. They pompously point their finger at the Pope's "mistakes", but they stubbornly refuse to admit that the SSPX could ever make a mistake. Adherence to the SSPX becomes more important than adherence to the Catholic Faith.
The SSPX supporter may immediately judge anything you say as an attack on "The Society" (their "Authority") or on "The Faith" (their "Answers"). Do your best to remain focused and level-headed, and try to reassure the supporter that you are not attacking, and that you are merely asking about certain "issues" that you are curious about.
The SSPX supporter may not answer your questions right away, but may instead go to the SSPX leaders for "Answers", which the supporter will bring back to you. Try to avoid this from happening by insisting that the supporter think for themselves, rather than letting the SSPX think for him/her. Otherwise, you will end up in a dialog with the SSPX leaders, instead of with the SSPX supporter you are trying to rescue.

The SSPX supporter may resist any attempt to convince them that the SSPX is in error, simply due to a sort of psychological "inertia", for lack of a better word. In other words, most people don't like to admit that they are wrong, or worse still, that they have been duped or "brainwashed" by anyone. For this reason alone, a member of a group like the SSPX will resist anyone telling them that basically, they've been misled by the group.

An SSPX supporter won't want to leave the SSPX, especially if he/she has alienated family and former non-SSPX friends, as the SSPX pressures all their supporters to do. If you are successful in convincing the SSPX supporter to leave the SSPX:
Once an SSPX supporter leaves the oppressive strictness of the SSPX, there is always a danger that he or she will "rebound" too far in a permissive and libertarian direction. Try to ensure that the supporter has a healthy sense of balance, and encourage him/her to avoid extremes.
We have presented you with some strategies that you can use when trying to rescue an SSPX supporter from the control of the SSPX. The main danger of the SSPX is mind manipulation: that includes letting the SSPX think for you. Once someone's mind is completely under the control of an "Authority", it will be very hard to reason with that person at all.

In a rather imprecise manner, Archbishop Lefebvre expressed his opinions regarding a "valid" though "sacrilegious" Mass (limiting himself to a "valid though sacrilegious" Novus Ordo Mass), and as to whether it can satisfy the Sunday obligation.
"... may I assist at a sacrilegious mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation..." [3]
About six years earlier, on March 8, 1980, the Archbishop had written, (albeit, perhaps, with mental reservation)[4], to Pope John Paul II:

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

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

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

"(3) As for the NOVUS ORDO Mass, despite the reservations which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical.
"I would be grateful (if you could)...hasten (the) free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society..., etc."[5]
WHICH MASSES ARE "THESE MASSES"?

In Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre, Mr. Michael Davies refers to a letter to him from the archbishop qualifying the term "these masses." He quotes from it after setting out the circumstances under which Novus Ordo Masses could be considered as being sacrilegious:

"Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass," wrote the Archbishop.
"Thus," (writes Michael Davies) "where the Archbishop states that 'these New Masses are incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation,' he is referring to New Masses which involve 'sacrilegious acts which pervert the faith by diminishing it.' The clarification which he made at my request makes it quite clear that this was indeed his meaning." [6]

Mr. Davies recorded the opinions of Archbishop Lefebvre as to some of the qualifying circumstances: "One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses (ie, those containing the following novelties in the New Mass) are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it...:
the altar replaced by a table without an altar stone; the Mass celebrated facing the people, concelebrated, in a loud voice, and in the vernacular; the Mass divided into two distinct parts: Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist; the cheapening of the sacred vessels, the use of leavened bread, distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, and by the laity, and even by women; the Blessed Sacrament hidden in corners;
the Epistle read by women; Holy Communion brought to the sick by laity." [7]
THE SOCIETY CANNOT TOLERATE QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE NOVUS ORDO

In an interview given to Mr. Don McLean, Mr. Michael Davies gave the following edited replies:

"I believe in my Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, one of the three volumes, I have quoted Archbishop Lefebvre saying he accepted the New Mass fulfilled the Sunday Obligation...I wouldn't say in Latin only, because the only person who can say which Mass fulfils your obligation and which Mass doesn't fulfil your obligation, is the Pope, one can't arrogate to oneself the prerogatives of the Vicar of Christ ...

"Q. Are all 'Old' Masses acceptable?
"I would attend any Tridentine Mass which was said reverently, in accordance with the rubrics, and where the sermon was acceptable...You are supposed to have the 1962 Missal used exactly as it is used by priests of the SSPX. An unadulterated 1962 Missal must be used, and communion must be given on the tongue...

"What was meant (in the answer of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain) by schismatic intent would be for example, if those who go to the Society Church in Melbourne on Sunday were to say that they were the only true Catholics in the whole of the Archdiocese of Melbourne, and everyone going to the New Mass, or to Indult Masses, are outside the Church. Such people would certainly have a schismatic mentality." [8]

Moreover, on November 8, 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre was compelled to advise that "The Society of St Pius X ... cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is PER SE invalid." (Emphasis added) And, of course, that intolerance resulted in the expulsion of, among others, "the nine" in the United States. [9]

Note that Archbishop Lefebvre is here talking about the essential validity of the 1969 Novus Ordo! Yet it appears that some so-called "traditionalists" claim invalidity for the Indult Mass - which is the 1962 Mass of Pope John XXIII. Some claim that the Novus Ordo Missae is not a Catholic Rite of Mass. Some that it is a sacrilege, or that if it is valid then it is a valid sacrilege. Some go so far as to pick and choose what they will believe from Pius XII - and some even limit credence to the popes up to and including Pope St Pius X!
THE ARCHBISHOP'S LANGUAGE FLUCTUATES

By 1986 the tone of the Archbishop's language had fluctuated to the point where he described the post Conciliar reformed liturgy and Sacraments in this way:
"All these (pre Pope John XXIII) Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it. The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls." [10]

THE PRAYERS "FOR THE JEWS"

On November 16, 1955, a General Decree and Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites introduced the Restored Order of Holy Week (A.A.S. 47, pp. 837-847). The Restored Ordo of Holy Week was Prescribed and "Those who follow the Roman Rite are bound in the future to follow the Restored Ordo for Holy Week [as] set forth in the original Vatican edition." [11]

Elsewhere, Mr. Michael Davies praised the SSPX for adhering to the Liturgical Books of the Church in relation to Pope Pius XII's Reform of the Holy Week Liturgy: "The Holy Week ceremonies at Econe conform to Maxima Redemptionis." [12]

Ah! But what does that mean? This Decree "only permitted the time (for the liturgical functions) to be changed. Nowhere did it explain any changes to the ceremonies themselves." [13]

One of the reforms of Pope Pius XII included the re-insertion of the "Oremus, flectamus genua and levate" (Let us pray, let us kneel, and arise] Thus, "On November 27, 1955, the Osservatore Romano at long last published a new ordinal of Holy Week, which, by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, made the procedure of 'kneeling, praying silently and then rising' also imperative for the eighth petition for the Jews in the Good Friday service. The official text of the decree was published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis on December 23, 1955, together with an authoritative article by an eminent Roman liturgist, explaining 'the pastoral importance of the restored rite which passed into desuetude a thousand years ago.'" [ 14]

Comment appeared in the Australian Catholic Record in 1958:
"SOME NOTES ON HOLY WEEK...FLECTAMUS GENUA... Throughout the Restored Order the rubric directs that all should kneel and pray silently for a short time after the invitation: Flectamus genua... How long should this silent prayer continue? At least for the space of a Pater Noster. More important than the precise length of the pause is the understanding that it is meant to be a short silent prayer before the celebrant pronounces the solemn petition in the name of the Church." [15]

Shortly after his elevation to the papacy in 1959, Pope John XXIII did away with the insulting and ambiguous passage "pro perfidis Judaeis," both in the Latin and in the vernacular, ordering that Christians, from March 27, 1959, on simply "pray for the Jews." [16]
Being a good, obedient priest and archbishop(?), no doubt Archbishop Lefebvre took seriously his Profession of the Catholic Faith, and complied with the requirements of the "legitimate order from a legitimate superior (which) must be obeyed" [17], and added the "Oremus, flectamus genua, and levate" in the "Prayer for the Jews" in the Good Friday liturgy and, later, no longer included the "pro perfidis Judaeis." To claim otherwise on the basis of hearsay is surely unwarranted? Yet, this is claimed by at least one local SSPX priest.

There may be some doubt here, however, for this SSPX priest makes a triple claim as justification for omitting those very same prayers, "Oremus, flectamus genua and levate":

"...that is how I have done it simply because that is what I was taught at the seminary; "...I have been told by numerous individuals that (Archbishop Lefebvre) omitted the genuflection [sic.] in question; indeed such was the practice at Econe."
Out of obedience to his Superior: "...at ordination...the Superior General, asks, 'Promittis mihi et successoribus meis...'"[18]
(Emphasis as in the original.)

The first claim simply demonstrates the possibility of group error; the second demonstrates reliance on hearsay plus an attempt to claim the possible error as being almost "infallible," an Econe "practice"!; and the third is no argument at all (unless real evidence can be produced, for example, by way of written command from Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Schmidberger or Bishop Fellay.)
ECONE: DIDN'T YOU ALWAYS?

Sad to say, I must inform Mr. Davies that he should review his opinion that the SSPX is Catholic in its use of the Liturgical books of Holy Mother Church - not only overseas but also here in Australia.
An account of a "mishmash" of practices was recorded by a former priest of the SSPX who has since joined the ranks of "Bishops at Large":

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

"It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Econe, because the rubrics were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.
"The best I can say is that over the years a certain eclectic blend of rubrics developed based on the double principle of what the Archbishop liked, and what one did in France. "These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. It is simply the 'Rite of Econe,' a law unto itself...
"As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way in which they celebrate Mass today ...

"At one time we were taught to reject the Vatican Council II entirely..." [19]

(Fr. (now Bishop- Ed. note) Daniel L. Dolan was one of nine U.S.A. Society priests expelled from the Society in 1983 by Archbishop Lefebvre ".... because they refused to pray for the Pope at Mass, they refused to conform to the liturgy of the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and they refused to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII.") [20]

What are today's criteria for expulsion? If Archbishop Lefebvre were alive today, would he countenance priests who now (at least ostensibly) pray for the Pope but who, nevertheless, "refuse to conform to the liturgy of the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and (who) refuse to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII," as happens in the District of Australia and New Zealand and elsewhere! Why include these last two matters if the only real "no no" is failure "to pray for the Pope at Mass" - an action which cannot be checked?

THE 1962 MISSAL OF POPE JOHN XXIII CANONIZED FOR THE SOCIETY

On April 5, 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre seems to have effectively canonised for the Society, the 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII. [21]
That Missal was described by Michael Davies as follows:

"Pope Pius XII authorised a rubrical revision chiefly concerned with the Calendar. This was in line with the reform undertaken by St Pius X. This reform was eventually completed by Pope John XXIII with the Decree Novum Rubricarum of 26 July 1960...he did make some changes to the Ordinary... omitting the Psalm Judica me, and the Last Gospel on certain occasions.
The second was to drop the Confiteor and Absolution before the people's Communion...and was to be followed by adding the name of St. Joseph to the Canon in December 1962... These changes left the Missal of St. Pius V substantially unchanged and caused no anxiety at the time.

"The clauses forbidding changes to the Missal included in Quo Primam can be found in other papal legislation which was subsequently amended or revoked and there has never been the least suggestion that the popes concerned were exceeding their authority.

"There could never have been the least doubt that the Missal of Pope John XXIII was still the Missal of St. Pius X." [22]
From this point, the acceptance of the reforms made by Pope Pius XII - particularly in respect of the Good Friday Liturgy - become intertwined with the continuation of reforms made by Pope John XXIII; in 1960, Pope John XXIII issued a Motu proprio in respect of the new Corpus Rubricarum for the Breviary and Missal. He decreed as follows:
"The new code of rubrics for the Roman Breviary and Missal...together with a Calendar and Missal... shall be of precept for all who follow the Roman Rite, from January 1, 1961...
"On the same day...the former general Rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal cease to be in force... The general Decree of the S.C.R. of March 23, 1956,...likewise ceases...Also abrogated are those decrees and responses of the Sacred Congregation of Rites which do not agree with this new form of rubrics. ['Abrogantur denique eiusdem S. Congregationis decreta et ad dubia responsiones, quae cum nova hac rubricarum forma non conveniunt.'] "Similarly, statutes, privileges, indults and customs of any kind, even century old and immemorable; furthermore even those worthy of most special and individual mention all are hereby revoked, if they are contrary to these new rubrics... "Lastly, all who are concerned shall see at once to the conformation of their Calendars and Propria, either diocesan or religious, to the rule and spirit of the new redaction of Rubrics and to the Calendar which shall be approved by the Sacred Congregation." [23]
A LEGITIMATE ORDER FROM A LEGITIMATE SUPERIOR

Was this Motu proprio NOT a "legitimate order from a legitimate superior which MUST be obeyed?" After all, Archbishop Lefebvre clearly stated: "...we do not see any other solutions to the problem than:
Freedom to celebrate the Old Rite according to the edition of Liturgical Books authorised by Pope John XXIII" [24], and the SSPX priests were expelled because "...they refused to conform to the liturgy of the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and they refused to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII.") [20]
The Australian Catholic Record for 1962 saw "no big deal" with the proposed new missal and contented itself with commenting on some of the peripheral changes:

"European publishers have been advertising a new edition of the Roman Missal for publication about April of this year. A recent edition of Ephemerides liturgicae (lxxv, 1961, pp. 401-447) contains a fairly complete summary of the modifications to be introduced in the Missal in order to bring it into line with the Code of Rubrics published in 1960. These changes are to be found in the Instructions issued to publishers by the Congregation of Rites.

"For the most part the changes are simply the application of the new rubrics as we have used them during the past year and more, however there are also some modifications in the Ritus servandus.

"... The simple rite of the Restored Order of Holy Week superseded the Memoriale for Holy Week, and the new rubrics have now made provision for the rites of the other two days. The Memoriale is, therefore a thing of the past."

"... The directions for a Missa Cantata are:...but after he has sung the Gospel the celebrant is not incensed... The omission of the incensation of the celebrant after the Gospel is because the celebrant is discharging the office of the deacon in singing the Gospel, and it is not the deacon who is incensed in a High Mass, but the celebrant.[25]
At what point of time during his career can Archbishop Lefebvre be accused of uttering a false Profession of Faith? Was it before or after his appointment as Bishop of Dakar in 1955; or of Tulle in 1962; or did he become a conscientious objector before or after the Novus Ordo was promulgated in 1969; or was it early in 1974 when the campaign started to suppress the SSPX? When did he first refuse to include the "Oremus, flectamus genua, and Levate," and refuse to "kneel for the Jews"? On May 5, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre signed a PROTOCOL OF ACCORD in which he made a pledge [26] for himself and the Society Members - a pledge that he repudiated the following day. Among other things he agreed:

"Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics." [27]
HOW HAVE PRIESTS OF THE SSPX REACTED TO ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE'S PLEDGE?
Have the Society members honored this "pledge" subsequently? Some examples that follow may provide an answer:
From Fr Jean Violette, District Superior, Australia and New Zealand:
"Instead of signing useless petitions, all those who want the Traditional Mass should join our ranks and show Rome a united front and boycott the new Mass, the new clergy, in fine, this new religion ..." "To sign such a thing would be to recognise the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and that we were wrong to stand up for the Mass in the first place ..."
"One of the conditions for the granting of the 'favour' is that the new Mass be recognised as being as good as the Traditional Mass ..."
"THIS INDULT IS AN INSULT. IT IS NOT FOR US...we do not accept the new Mass as lawful...an adulterous union with its bastard fruits...we want the concubine gone...we hope and pray...for the condemnation and total disappearance of the new Mass ...the Traditional Mass...IS THE ONLY FORM OF WORSHIP ACCEPTABLE TO GOD.

The new Mass is not." [28]
This was followed up with quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre of unstated date: Regarding "...our enemies on the other side...'celebrating the Tridentine Mass...THEY ARE BETRAYING US...they are doing the devil's work.'[29] "...to associate in friendship or solidarity with them is implicitly to betray the Catholic Faith..." [30]
"...the fact that I refuse to cooperate (sic) with the Ecclesia Dei people ...the Society of St. Peter or Dom Gerard...I want nothing to do with them either ...the Ecclesia Dei movement here in Australia...they must also agree that the new Mass is good...and most of them accept the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre..." [31]
"Mr. Pickford says: 'The Pope, the bishops in union with him and the vast majority of Catholics who worship God in a way other than the way employed by the Society are deemed to be in a new religion.' Yes absolutely!..." [32]
"Mr. Pickford says: 'Father Violette establishes his belief that what he holds as true religion is other than what the Catholic Church holds as true religion.' I distinguish; what I hold as the true religion is other than the Catholic Church held up to Pius XII (sic.!!!); I deny the Catholic Church since Vatican II; I concede." [33]
"I do remember the Archbishop telling us that Fr. Wathen's book was good although he, the Archbishop, did not share his conclusion that the new Mass was per se always invalid." [34]
[Can something be per se sometimes invalid and at another time sometimes not invalid? F.J.L.]
From Fr Kevin Robinson, curate at Hampton, Australia:
While Archbishop Lefebvre had never said that the Novus Ordo was in itself invalid or heretical or that it did not satisfy the Sunday obligation, at the same time he "never said that it wasn't invalid, nor that it wasn't heretical, nor that it could satisfy the Sunday obligation." [35]
(This, of course, is demonstrably false,[36]
rests entirely on hearsay and even if true it would only be a demonstration of the Archbishop's mental processes!) In writing to the Sovereign Pontiff on March 8, 1980, how would it have been received by him if Lefebvre had written: As for the Novus Ordo Mass, despite the reservations which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical; "but neither have I ever affirmed that it is in itself valid or orthodox, or that it does satisfy the Sunday obligation."
Wouldn't it be cheeky to add: "I would be grateful (if you would)...hasten (the) free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society ...,etc."? Chutzpah, I would say! From Fr. James Peek, Rector of Holy Cross Seminary, Australia:
"I am denying what Mr. Davies says you can't: that the New Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church." [37]
In addition to the description of Masses, offered by priests under the terms of the Indult, as being "INSULT MASSES," other terms have been used by some SSPX priests such as describing attendees as being "INDULTERS" ("INDULTEROUS"?). [38]
Furthermore, some reports allege that the Indult Mass itself has been branded as being invalid!
On the other hand, we have:

From François Laisney: "Far from us to condemn those who go to the Traditional Mass authorised by the Indult." [39]
The active participation [on the altar and at the grave) of a SSPX priest at the Indult Requiem Mass for Mrs. Catherine Emily Foley, conducted from St. Anne's Church, under the auspices of the Indult granted by Archbishop Sir Frank Little. The priest was, Fr. Gerard Hogan, a former Australasian SSPX District Superior. [40]
IT IS TOTALLY UNTRUE THAT I INTEND TO "CONSECRATE ONE OR MORE BISHOPS"
The following from "16 November, 1976, extracts from an Interview with Michael Davies" [41]
Firstly: Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with the propositions that.
"Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council properly convoked by the reigning Pontiff according to the accepted norms;" He accepted "that its official documents were voted for by a majority of the Council Fathers and validly promulgated by the reigning Pontiff;" and then he disagreed with the next allegation: That "you intend to consecrate one or more bishops to continue your work. Is this true?" "Mgr. Lefebvre: It is totally untrue."
On June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated three bishops under "Operation Survival." ("Catholic," Aug/Sep. 88, p.1). This is not to say that in 1976 the Archbishop did have any intentions to consecrate, however, some believed the contrary at that time.

How can an ordinary card-carrying traditionalist cope with this "mishmash?" Does the Society of St Pius X have a policy in regard to the Rite of Mass that must be followed, else "off with your head?" Is 1962 the norm, or 1958, or 1903, or 15xx? If there is no norm, why is there not?
Ironically, an article appeared in the SSPX American magazine, "The Angelus," which may offer an explanation. The principles may apply, not only to sede vacantism per se, but also to attitudes towards the post Conciliar Popes, the Novus Ordo, the Sacraments and other administrative acts that do not involve sin:

SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT THE REFORMED HOLY WEEK RITES OF POPE PIUS XII

"Among the other contradictions in which sedevacantists involve themselves, many reject the reformed Holy Week rites of Pius XII. At the same time, however, they uphold the legitimacy of Pius XII. If Pius XII can promulgate a liturgy contaminated with modernistic principles (as they assert), then why could not Paul VI have done the same (with regard to the Novus Ordo) while also remaining a legitimate Supreme Pontiff?
After all, there would only be a difference in degree between them. Rejection of the reformed Holy Week rites - which had, by the way, been accepted without any protest whatsoever from the Universal Church - remains absolutely inexplicable in light of their argument from infallibility." [42]

BEST LEFT FORGOTTEN?
While condemning the "bastard" products of the Conciliar Church seminaries - isn't it also true that the Society has produced results of which it would prefer to minimise? What does this say for the "formation" of SSPX priests?
Isn't it true that one priest has defected from the Society (in some form or another) for approximately every third to fourth SSPX priest ordained - in other words a 25 to 33% loss rate?
Isn't it true that the Society is responsible for the introduction into the folds of "Bishops at Large" at least another two schismatic Bishops?
Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., was one of the priests responsible for drafting the so-called Ottaviani Intervention, and was also at one time a professor of theology at Econe. Consecrated by Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc in July 1981, he consecrated another three bishops, one of whom is responsible for another four bishops.
Bishop Daniel L. Dolan - the same as mentioned in above - a former SSPX priest, was consecrated also by a schismatic Thuc line bishop in November 1993.

Less than two months prior to the ordination of Fr. Laisney, on May 13, 1982, Juan Fernandez Krohn, age 32, a former priest of the SSPX made an assassination attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II, at Fatima.
SSPX's OFFICIAL POSITION

The Society of St Pius X's official (if not "flexible") position appears to be as follows:
"The SSPX has never denied the Pope's right and authority in making a new rite of the Mass. It simply says that in doing so he must follow Tradition." [43]
"...the New Mass is [not] an official Mass of the Catholic Church." [44]
[No qualifications! F.J.L.] "...the New Mass...is in itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil." [45]
"It may still have sufficient elements to ensure validity...but it is not for making Catholics." [46]
The SSPX does "not accept the new mass as lawful." [47]
The Novus Ordo in Latin MAY BE valid, MAY NOT BE heretical and MAY BE capable of fulfilling the Sunday obligation for "those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday" - but not at those (which today means MOST) New Masses "which involve 'sacrilegious acts which pervert the faith by diminishing it.'" [48]
As time progresses, the "so-called seminarians" who have been trained in the Novus Ordo seminaries will not have the necessary intention to "accomplish valid masses." [49]
Archbishop Lefebvre had never stated that the Novus Ordo was invalid, nor that it was heretical and had never stated that it may not fulfil the Sunday obligation. On the other hand, he had never stated that it was NOT invalid, nor that it was NOT heretical, nor that it DID fulfil the Sunday obligation. [50]
The Novus Ordo and the associated rites for the Sacraments of Penance, Confirmation, Holy Orders, the Sacrament of the Sick (formerly Extreme Unction), either individually or as a whole, are suspect of being per se invalid and unlawful; they are, in fact, the core of "this new religion" and are not a part of "the only form of worship acceptable to God." [51]
The Archbishop put it this way: "The Society (of St. Pius X) does not say that all the sacraments according to the new post-conciliar rites are invalid, but that due to bad translations, the lack of proper intention, and the changes introduced in the matter and form, the number of invalid sacraments are increasing." [52]
And this is how Fr. Schmidberger expressed himself: "Is the New Mass pleasing to God? We must distinguish. If it is a true sacrifice and sacramentally valid (which is less and less the case, since many priests have no longer the intention to offer a true sacrifice), then it is surely pleasing to God as sacrifice. But the whole liturgy is a true danger for the faithful, so the whole rite surrounding the sacrifice is certainly always displeasing to God." [53]
The SSPX form of Mass "IS THE ONLY FORM OF WORSHIP ACCEPTABLE TO GOD" (emphasis as in the original) [51] and "is the immemorial custom of the Church ..." [54]
"The Pope, the bishops in union with him and the vast majority of Catholics who worship God in a way other than the way employed by the Society are deemed to be in a new religion." [55]
The Pope is leader of the Roman Catholic Church and of the Conciliar Church - a new religion. "Mr. Pickford... can't face the fact that maybe by the new Mass he is not worshipping God. He does not want to admit he is following a new religion." [56]

On the one hand: "We recognise in John Paul II the legitimate Pope of the Catholic Church. We don't even say that he is a heretical Pope. We only say that his Modernist actions favour heresy." [57]
But on the other hand: "Pope John Paul II is not only deplorably deficient in his teaching but an absolute scandal... He is not a great Pope; worse, he is a bad Pope." [58]
This was preceded by publication of a cartoon depicting the Pope at the gates of Heaven, being rejected by Our Lord saying: "I'm Sorry! But there's only one religion here. Go and look elsewhere." [59]

Refusal to co-operate with the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Ecclesia Dei movement in Australia, Society of St. Peter, and Dom Gerard and his monastery of Le Barroux - liberals, modernists, "enemies of Tradition, wolves in sheep's clothing and they cannot be trusted." [60]
Indulgences belong to the Treasury of the Society of St Pius X. The requirements for gaining a plenary indulgence no longer include "prayer for the Pope's intentions." [61]
Crypto sedevacantism is "not the worst sin." [62]
Holy Days of Obligation in Australia include, in addition to all Sundays and Christmas Day: The Circumcision of Our Lord, The Ascension, The Assumption, and All Saints. [63]
Only the Assumption (unless it falls on Monday or Saturday - in which case it is not of obligation).[64]
Does the Society have the power to "over-ride" the Church's declarations as to what shall or shall not bind the faithful under pain of mortal sin (and consequent eternal damnation)?

Having "effectively canonised" the 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII (with his Letter of April 5, 1983, and his having expelled "the nine" in the United States because "they refused to pray for the Pope at Mass, they refused to conform to the liturgy of the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and they refused to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII"[65]), did the Archbishop de-canonise that Missal? Is that Missal still now obligatory? Will recalcitrant priests be brought into line if they still refuse? If it is not obligatory, then what is? Will the SSPX be "Catholic" in its use of the liturgy and calendar?

The same applies to the Holy Week Liturgy! Will those who refuse to include the "Oremus, Flectamus genua and Levate" in the Prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy, and who intermix the rites according to their own will be required to conform - or will they be excommunicated from the SSPX as were the "nine?"

YOU SAID IT, BISHOP WILLIAMSON!
In one of his The Faith in Crisis Series tapes - The Long And Narrow Path [66] - among many other things, Bishop Richard Williamson says:
"...if my superiors seem to treat these things as if they are true - what am I to think? to do?...
"...it's clear also that the Catholics today that are keeping the faith are very much more having to think for themselves than they may have had to do fifty years ago when they could simply trust their parish priest. But today they are being obliged to use their own minds and make their own decisions, and many of these Catholics have chosen, at least for the time being, to accompany or follow the Society of St Pius X.
"But it is also clear, and it is absolutely right that it should be so, that they are not following the Society unconditionally,... and they must accustom themselves to using their own minds and making their own decisions rather more than they would have when they had a reliable parish priest; and, then, when it comes to using their minds they must apply the test of Our Lord, which is, 'By their fruits you shall know them.'
"Catholics are not expected to be learned theologians or to go into all the arguments or to be able to understand all the arguments. But Our Lord does expect them to use their faith and their supernatural common sense to judge where there are the fruits of Our Lord and the fruits of Satan...
"Interviewer: 'So often it's the easy way out to just proclaim: obedience! obedience! obedience!'
"Bishop Williamson: 'They are taking the easy way out in order to follow the easy path.'"
POPE OR NO POPE - WHO CARES?

The author ceased receiving the so-called "Catholic" monthly journal edited by Silvester Donald McLean around April 1997. However, Mr. Gerard Charles Wilson, Editor of "Judica Me, Deus" sent me a copy of his publication for August 1999 in which he rightly takes issue with an article which appeared in the May issue of so-called "Catholic" entitled "Pope or No Pope - Who Cares?", by Jaime Sotelo.
++++++++++++++++++++
"FLEXIBLE" ATTITUDES
(The following repeats much of the above, but it is important in understanding the "ups and downs" of the period.)
PRAYERS FOR THE JEWS - HOLY WEEK
A General Decree entilled "The Liturgical Order of Holy Week Is Restored" was issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on 16 November 1955. The Decree ordered all who followed the Roman Rite to follow the Restored Order of Holy Week, as prescribed by Pope Pius XII. [67]
The rubrics for Good Friday now required that all should kneel and pray silently for a short time after the Flectamus genua invitation - for "At least for the space of a Pater Noster." [68]
For the first time in about a thousand years, the Flectamus genua, Oremus and Levate were applied to the Prayer for the Jews. [69]
It is presumed that, at least for some time, Lefebvre complied with this order. Whether or when he defied the order is a matter for conjecture in the light of a statement by Fr. Todd Angele, SSPX Prior at Hampton (who refused to include the Flectamus, Oremus and Levate in the Prayers For The Jews in the Good Friday Liturgy, giving as his reason: "I would not genuflect for the Jews.") He would later explain [70]:
"...that is how I have done it simply because that is what I was taught at the seminary;
"...I have been told by numerous individuals that (Archbishop Lefebvre) omitted the genuflection in question; indeed such was the practice at Econe."
Out of obedience to his Superior: "...at ordination...the Superior General, asks, 'Promittis mihi et successoribus meis...' " (Emphasis as in the original.)
OTHER REFORMS
Pope John XXIII's Motu Proprio Corpus Rubricarum (of 25 July 1960) for the Breviary and Missal decreed: 1. The new code of rubrics for the Roman Breviary, Missal and Calendar and Missal to be obligatory in the Roman Rite from 1 January 1961.
2. The former general Rubrics of the Breviary and Missal ceased to be in force..The general Decree of the S.C.R. of 23 March 1956 likewise ceased. Also abrogated were those decrees and responses of the S.C.R. which didn't agree with the new form of rubrics.
3. Similarly, statutes, privileges, indults and customs of any kind, even century-old and immemorable; further-more even those worthy of most special and individual mention all are hereby revoked, if they are contrary to these new rubrics.
6. All concerned shall at once conform their Calendars and Propria, either diocesan or religious, to the rule and spirit of the new redaction of Rubrics and to the Calendar approved by the S.C.R. [71]
The revision was eventually completed by Pope John XXIII with the Decree Novum Rubricarum (of 26 July 1960). Some changes were made to the Ordinary (omitting the Psalm Judica me, and the Last Gospel on certain occasions. The Confiteor and Absolution before the people's Communion were dropped) and in December 1962 the name of St Joseph was added to the Canon. The Missal of St. Pius V was substantially unchanged and caused no anxiety at the time..."

The clauses forbidding changes to the Missal included in Quo Primam can be found in other papal legislation which was subsequently amended or revoked and there has never been the least suggestion that the Popes concerned were exceeding their authority. There could never have been the least doubt that the Missal of Pope John XXIII was still the Missal of St Pius X." [72]
AT THE COUNCIL
The "Petition (of 11 October 1964) ...’magno cum dolore’ by majority leaders (of Vatican Council II) addressed to Pope Paul is interesting for its firmness of tone and the fact that it does not hesitate to deplore the 'appearance of a violation of the rules of the Council' (by Lefebvre's faction)."[73]
On 16 October 1964, "The Pope...directed (Cardinals Bea and Ottaviani) each to appoint two members from their respective commissions to form a joint mixed commission to consider ways in which the text on Religious Liberty could be improved. The Pope then chose five from among these twenty members, adding five names of his own, to form a consultative commission to review the text on Religious Liberty.

The name of Archbishop Lefebvre, Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, did NOT appear on the list; it did contain the names of Cardinal Browne, Bishop Pelletier ... Archbishop Parente, Bishop Colombo, etc." [74]

THE OTTAVIANNI INTERVENTION
The "Ottaviani Intervention" (dated 5 June 1969) was written by a group of Roman theologians headed by Archbishop Lefebvre. Fr. M.L. Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., was responsible for its drafting.[75]
Des Lauriers later taught at Econe and, finally, on May 7, 1981, he became a sede vacantist schismatic Thuc line Bishop. [76]
Here are some more interesting references regarding The Ottaviani Intervention/ Archbishop Lefebvre/Fr. Guerard des Lauriers:
+++++++++++++++
"In the 1950s Fr. Guerard des Lauriers was a brilliant adversary of modernism, and the errors of Teilhard de Chardin. In 1969 he authored the brief critical examination of the New Mass (known as The Ottaviani Intervention) signed by Cardinals Ottaviani et Bacci.
"...having received permission from his superiors to live 'extra conventum' Fr. Guerard became a professor at Econe. Nevertheless he had to leave the seminary in 1977 having been chased away from the 'Seminary of Tradition' by the Lefebvrist authorities for Sedevacantism (an opinion which holds that the Chair of Peter is vacant.)"
From the Curriculum Vitae of Bishop Michel-Louis Guerard des Lauriers O.P., listed at www.olfatima.com/guerardcurric.html. This is a Thucite site operated by Fr. Terence R. Fulham, an associate of Bishop Daniel Dolan, who was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre and consecrated by Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, who was consecrated by Bishop Moises Carmona Rivera, who was consecrated by Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc.
+++++++++++++++
"With Bishops Morcillo (Madrid), Castro Mayer (Campos), de Proenca-Sigaud (Diamantina) and 250 more prelates, Archbishop Lefebvre created a 'traditionalist commando' within the Council, the 'Coetus Internationalis Patrum,' composed of traditional Fathers who tried to stop the over-powerful influence of the rich and popular Modernist wing directed by Cardinal Bea...
"Archbishop Lefebvre gathered together a group of twelve theologians, amongst them Fr. des Lauriers and Fr. Arriaga, who wrote under his direction the famous 'Critical Examination of the N.O.M.'
The Archbishop obtained a preface by Cardinal Ottaviani, and Mrs. Campo and Princess Pallavincini the signature of Cardinal Bacci. The two cardinals presented the document to Paul VI."
Fr. Ramon Angles, Saint Mary's College, Saint Mary's, Kansas. smac.edu/history/mgrlefebvre.html.
+++++++++++++++
"The Thuc bishops in the U.S. all trace their episcopal consecrations to one of two men:
"- Bishop M.-L. Guerard des Lauriers O.P, formerly a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome and at the Society of St. Pius X's seminary in Econe, Switzerland (he was one of my teachers), and the author of the famous Ottaviani Intervention.

"- Bishop Moises Carmona Rivera, a diocesan priest from Acapulco who for years offered the traditional Mass for sizable groups of the faithful in various parts of Mexico."

From: "The validity Of the Thuc Consecrations," by Fr. Anthony Cekada. Listed at www.olfatima.com/cekada2.html. Fr. Cekada was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. He now a sedevacantist associated by the Mount Saint Michael group.
+++++++++++++++

"His lordship [Bishop Lazo], since retiring in 1993, has returned to the exclusive celebration of the Tridentine Mass. On Saturday the bishop gave the pilgrims a conference on his return to the traditional Mass. Unfortunately, due to mechanical problems it was not recorded. His return to Tradition came after having been visited by some of the SSPX faithful in Manila who left him some reading material amongst others:
Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, Cranmer's Godly Order, Pope John's Council by Michael Davies, and Open Letter to Confused Catholic, I Accuse the Council, by Archbishop Lefebvre and the Ottaviani Intervention, also written by a group of roman theologians headed by Archbishop Lefebvre." (Fr. Jean Violette Letter to Faithful, June-July 1996).
+++++++++++++++
The latest print by TAN Publishers is copyrighted by Fr. Anthony Cekada, who was ordained by Lefebvre, but who is now a sedevacantist attached to the Mount St. Michael group at Spokane (former Shuckhardt stronghold). [77]
"The organisers (of the Intervention) hoped to have a large number of high-ranking ecclesiastics sign it, along with the Cardinal - Archbishop Lefebvre spoke of six hundred bishops." [78]
It would not be the last time that he would make such a drastic over estimation!

HE SIGNED Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes were signed by both Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Meyer on 7 December 1965 - a fact that he would later deny. [79]
In THE LATIN MASS of Spring 1997, Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S., referred to "members and supporters of the Society of St Pius X (having) resorted to the most convoluted hermeneutical acrobatics and bizarre conspiracy theories in order to explain away the conclusive documentary evidence" that Archbishop Lefebvre did, in fact, sign Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes on December 7, 1965 having "in a moment of submissiveness, subjected his own judgment to that of Peter and, added his signature to the documents, thereby sharing in their promulgation (but that) after the Council he quickly reverted to his total opposition to these documents, especially Dignitatis Humanae."[80]
ECONE ERECTED
Lefebvre "was, at the time the Council finished, the Superior of the Holy Ghost Fathers. He soon resigned this position and retired to a small apartment in Rome. Econe was established 7 October 1970." [81]
The Society of St Pius X was canonically erected in the Diocese of Lausanna, Geneva. Econe was established after the Novus Ordo was promulgated on 3 April 1969. [82]
The decree of foundation was signed by Mgr. Charriere on 1 November 1970. [83]
In his "short biography" on Archbishop Lefebvre [84]
Fr. Ramon Angles, records the permission and canonical erection of the SSPX at Econe by Bishop Charriere. He does NOT mention that one of the conditions was that it was granted for a period of six years "ad experimentum." The photocopy of the "Decret d'erection de la 'Fraternite Sacerdotale Internationale Saint Pie X" is plainly exhibited in the November 1980 issue of "The Angelus." Unfortunately, the six year period did not run to full term, for the order for the closure of the site was issued - Cardinal Tabera authorized Mgr. Mamie (Bishop Charriere's successor) to withdraw canonical approval from the SSPX, and Lefebvre would be suspended on 1 July, 1976. OPINIONS
Positively: "I shall never say that the new Ordo Missae is heretical, I shall never say that it cannot be a Sacrifice. I believe that many priests, above all those priests who have known the old Ordo, - certainly have very good intentions in saying their Mass. Far be it from me to say that everything is wrong with the new Ordo." [85]
Positively: "... Mgr. L. told me his point of view: it is better to have the new Mass than not to have Mass at all; it is safer, to avoid losing the faith, to go to the new Mass than not to go at all." [86]
Negatively: On 21 November 1974 Lefebvre castigates Vatican II, declaring the reform of Vatican Council II to be entirely corrupt, coming from and resulting in heresy; it is not possible for any faithful Catholic to adopt or submit to it in any way, but that it is to be categorically refused. He says that he held firmly to all that has been believed and practiced in matters of faith, morals, worship, catechetical instruction, priestly formation, Church institutions, and such things codified in the books which appeared before the Modernist influence of the Council. Rome is neo-modernist and neo-protestant. It is impossible for any alert Catholic to adopt or submit to it in any at all. [87]
Hutton Gibson (former National General Secretary of the Latin Mass Society of Australia) relates how: "In 1975 or 1976 Gerald Hogan, then a seminarian at Econe, returned home for a funeral in Melbourne. He then came to Sydney, and I drove him here and there. He said that seminarians away from Econe were let satisfy their Sunday obligation at either traditional or novus ordo Mass....

"...Lefebvre himself used the 'Mass' of Paul VI in St. Peter's Basilica at the altar-tomb of his 'patron' Pope St. Pius X, because, he said, by celebrating the traditional Mass he would give scandal. He used the 'Mass' of Paul VI even at Econe, and was finally persuaded by his staff priests that it was inconsistent with his 'aim' to train priests for the traditional Mass...

"...So this 'Mass' of Paul VI, they tell me, is what Lefebvre celebrated at the tomb of St. Pius V, at Econe until talked out of it, and when in hospital at Bogota (concelebration with Aulagnier)... "[88]

MONITUM, SUSPENSION and MORE OPINIONS
11 July 1976: The Apostolic Nuncio in Switzerland attests that Lefebvre received the formal monitum. Negatively: In spite of all objections, he proceeded with the ordinations on 30 June 1976. Paul VI replied on 1st July by striking the priests ordained with a suspensus a divinis. On 29th July the same sanction struck Lefebvre - who replied the same day with an unequivocal declaration: "This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church of the centuries." He continually insisted upon the heresy and schism of Vatican II and its church. However, at the same time he was talking of "interpreting the council in the sense of Tradition" and was already demanding "that they allow us to experiment with Tradition." [89]

Negatively: On 29th July 1976 under the shock of the suspensus a divinis (of 22 July), Lefebvre declared: "This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church of the centuries ..." "This conciliar church is schismatic because it has taken as the basis for its updating principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church." "The church which affirms errors like these is both schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is thus not Catholic." [90]
Negatively: July 1976: Lefebvre treats the conciliar church, its hierarchy and particularly its "pope" as schismatic: "All those who cooperate in the application of this upheaval, accept and adhere to this new conciliar church ... enter into schism." [91]
Positively: But, then, less than a week later, speaking of the council, he said: "I do not reject it altogether. I accept the council in so far as it conforms to Tradition." [92]

What is more, in a statement to the newspaper "Le Figaro", he excelled himself. After repeating his harsh words of 29th July and questioning the legitimacy of Paul VI, he concluded: "We are thus quite decided to continue our work of the restoration of the Catholic priesthood whatever happens, convinced that we can render no better service to the Church, to the Pope, to the bishops and to the faithful. Let them allow us to experiment with tradition." [93]
At Ecône, until September 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI - concelebration being permitted in the first statutes. The rubrics were a mishmash - in fact, no rubrics were taught at all, it was a matter of: what the Archbishop liked, and what one did in France, These rubrics ranged freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI 1968. It is simply the 'Rite of Econe,' a law unto itself...
At one time we were taught to reject the Vatican Council II entirely..." [94]
KNEELS AT FEET OF PAUL VI - NOT GOING TO CONSECRATE BISHOPS!

Positively: On 11th September 1976 "the rebellious bishop" knelt at Paul VI's feet and asked him for permission to make the experiment of Tradition: "You have only to say the word." At the end of the interview he marvelled that this meeting could have been arranged in two days and declared: "Perhaps they have realised that I am not alone; they have taken account of the fact that almost 52% of French Catholics share my point of view. Perhaps they fear the disastrous consequences of a rupture." [95]
(Refer also to his estimate of support for the Ottaviani Intervention in 1969.)
Positively: 16 November 1976: Firstly: Lefebvre agreed with the propositions that "Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council properly convoked by the reigning Pontiff according to the accepted norms;"
He accepted "that its official documents were voted for by a majority of the Council Fathers and validly promulgated by the reigning Pontiff;" and then he disagreed with the next allegation:
That "you intend to consecrate one or more bishops to continue your work. Is this true?"
"Mgr. Lefebvre: It is totally untrue." [96]
Negatively: On June 30, 1988, he did consecrated four bishops under "Operation Survival"[97].
This is not to say that in 1976 the Archbishop did have any intentions to consecrate, however, some believed the contrary at that time.

CO-HABITATION OF RITES then the CURSES
Positively: On another day, 15 March 1978, Lefebvre does not blush to consider the cohabitation of the two rites. He distinguishes between "good" new masses and bad ones. Nor does he rule out assistance at the new mass to satisfy the Sunday obligation: "I think they should not abandon every public religious act and in consequence if the mass is celebrated in a respectful manner and not sacrilegious, I think that it is right to assist at this Sunday mass in order to fulfil the obligation." [98]
Negatively: Today, 19 March 1978, he says: "The Catholic-protestant mass, a spring henceforth poisoned which produces incalculable ravages. The ecumenical mass leads logically to apostasy." [99]
Positively: On 24 December 1978, he lowers himself to beg from these (who he calls) "schismatics" a recognition for which he is still waiting: "Most Holy Father, for the honour of Jesus Christ, for the good of the Church, for the salvation of souls, we beseech you to say a single word, a single word: 'Let them continue'." [100]
Negatively: Up to the 8 November 1979 Declaration, Lefebvre had called the Roman Catholic Church (the so-called "Conciliar Church") "the official church which is not the Church." [101], and "a schismatic church." [102]
BUT HIS "VIEWS HAVEN'T CHANGED" - HAVE THEY?

Positively: 8 November 1979. Lefebvre stated that his own views had not changed over the years; that no one should be mistaken regarding his and the official position of the SSPX on the Novus Ordo Missae - which was: that no one in the SSPX could "tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid..." [103]
Positively: This day, 18 November 1978, he declares himself ready "to sign a declaration accepting the 2nd Vatican Council interpreted according to Tradition." [104]
Negatively: On another day he fulminates against "the mass of Luther" which "presupposes a different conception of the Catholic religion, a different religion." [105]
Positively: Lefebvre "excuses" his statements in this way: "If in my discourses I made use of somewhat extreme expressions, allowances must be made for literary style." [106]
"Schismatic church", "heretical church" - the literary style of the prelate of Ecône is corrosive enough, but his withdrawal is quite pitiful." [107]
Michael Davies reports: "The Holy Week ceremonies at Econe conform to Maxima Redemptionis." [108]
Positively: The New Mass can fulfil the Sunday obligation. Lefebvre to Michael Davies. (May 1980). [109] ACTIVE ASSISTANCE AT "LUTHER'S MASS"
Positively: "...in regard to the new mass, Mgr. Lefebvre knows how to join deeds with words and give an example. On 30 June 1980, on the occasion of the obsequies of a member of his family, accompanied by Fr. Simoulin, he assisted ‘actively’ at ‘Luther's mass’ completely in the modern fashion." [110]
Positively: 5 April 1983: "...we do not see any other solutions to the problem than: "Freedom to celebrate the Old Rite according to the edition of Liturgical Books authorised by Pope John XXIII." [111]

USA "NINE" EXCOMMUNICATED

Positively: In October 1983 "Archbishop Lefebvre did expel nine priests from the U.S.A.... because they refused to pray for the Pope at Mass, they refused to conform to the liturgy of the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and they refused to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII." [112]
Negatively: 3 October 1984: On the Decree of the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship (released 15/10/84) to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, Fr. (later Bishop) Richard N. Williamson stated: "While acknowledging that a Pope may legitimately introduce a new rite of Mass, we can never admit that a rite, departing so far from Tradition as the Novus Ordo Missae is, as such, legitimate or doctrinally sound." [113]

FOR THE RECORD, HE SAID IT:
Negatively: In 1986: "All these Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it. The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls." [114]
Negatively: In a rather imprecise manner, Lefebvre expressed his opinions regarding a "valid" though "sacrilegious" Mass (limiting himself to a "valid though sacrilegious" Novus Ordo Mass), and as to whether it can satisfy the Sunday obligation.
"... may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation..." [115] (Here he refers to what he calls "sacrilegious" Novus Ordo Masses.)

Negatively; "Rome has apostacized, the Roman churchmen are quitting the Church, their program of de-christianising society is an abomination." [116]
HE SIGNED THE PROTOCOL - WELSHED THE NEXT DAY!
Positively: On 5 May 1988, Lefebvre signed a PROTOCOL OF ACCORD for himself and Society Members:
"3) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics." [117]
Positively: The Protocol, however, was accepted!
"The Cardinal informed us that we would now have to allow one New Mass to be celebrated at St. Nicholas du Chardonnet. He insisted on the one and only Church, that of Vatican II. In spite of these disappointments, I signed the Protocol on May 5th..." [118]
It is to be noted here that Archbishop Lefebvre signed the protocol "to allow one New Mass to be celebrated..." - a Mass that Fathers Violette and Peek would later describe as "intrinsically evil" [119]

Fr. Harrison, O.S., pointed out that "Mr. McDonald (along with the French traditionalists who were the source of his ‘information’) is just plain wrong [concerning Lefebvre's claim not to have signed Dignitatus Humanae, etc.. F.J.L.] It is an indisputable historical fact that those two prelates (Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer. F.J.L.) signed the final, officially promulgated Declaration on Religious Liberty..." [120]

Negatively: On 6 May 1988: That he would allow himself to be almost immediately dissuaded, (from honouring his word and signature relative to the Protocol) and the 1965 event (relative to repudiating his signing of Dignitatis Humanae) be shown not to be an isolated event, is history - Fr. Harrison wrote (THE LATIN MASS of Spring 1997): "Those who remember the events of May-June 1988 will not find this sudden about-face on the part of Lefebvre to be out of character; after all, he retracted almost immediately the agreement he had signed on May 5 with Cardinal Ratzinger which would have given legitimacy to the SSPX. Also, it seems that former members of the SSPX have testified that in private, the Archbishop vacillated between a sedevacantist outlook and acceptance of John Paul II as being a true pope." [121]
A DOLLAR EACH WAY
Fr. Robinson of Hampton, Australia, during the Sermon about the Novus Ordo stated that Lefebvre Had NEVER described it as being invalid, nor heretical, nor not fulfilling the Sunday obligation.
At the same time, he had NEVER described it as being in the contrary sense, i.e., NOT BEING invalid, nor NOT BEING heretical, nor AS fulfilling the Sunday obligation, and Lefebvre had never said it (the Novus Ordo Missae) himself. [122]
Obviously, Fr. Robinson had not known of the information above.
HE ONLY FOLLOWED 2000 YEARS OF TRADITION, RIGHT?

"He (Lefebvre) often says, in defence of his work, that the saints did not act differently. Whatever the prelate may say, the wild seminaries, the ordinations without dimissorial letters, confirmations and confessions without jurisdiction are practices contrary to what has always been done in the Church. With the exception of the heretical-schismatics who do not recognize the Catholic Church as the sole ark of salvation and do not belong to Her, no bishop or saint whatever has ever opened a seminary, a university, a place of worship, even a private one, or administered the sacraments without the previous permission of the Ordinary, still less in defying his prohibition, without having first denounced him as a heretic and acting publicly in consequence, as did St. Athanasius in his day." [123]
++++++++++++++++
A composite extract by F. John Loughnan from John Beaumont and John Walsh's
Schism, Obedience and the Society of St. Pius X, [124] and The Story of the Vanishing Schism: The Strange Case of Cardinal Lara [125]
"...During the last twenty years a not inconsiderable number of Catholics have followed the lead given by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X founded by him, thinking that this was the way to defend what they believed to be the traditional Catholic faith in a time of crisis in the Church...
"...The Consequences of These Errors
"...How can the Society of St. Pius X still be in communion with the pope and the Church? Consider the following facts:
"1. The Society establishes seminaries, churches, chapels, and priories throughout the world without any reference to the local ordinaries in whose dioceses it carries out these acts. This is contrary to the Code of Canon Law (Canons 234, 237, 1215, 1223-1228).
"2. It ordains priests without the dismissorial letters required by Canon Law (Canons 1015, 1018-1023). "3. It hears confessions and celebrates marriages without jurisdiction (Canons 966-976, 1108-1123). "4. It gives Holy Communion to persons who are well known sede vacantists (Canon 844). This is in spite of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself regarded such movements as having a 'schismatic spirit' (Open Letter to Confused Catholics (1986), p. 155). "5. It refused Pope Paul VI's command to close the seminary at Econe and wind up the Society (see the letter of the Commission of Cardinals to Archbishop Lefebvre and that of Pope Paul VI to the Archbishop, dated 6th May, 1975 and 29th June, 1975 respectively, both of which are reprinted, together with the Society's responses, in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume One, pp. 57- 59; 112- 119). "6. It carries out confirmations in other bishops' dioceses. This is contrary to the Council of Trent which decrees that: 'No bishop is permitted under any pretext or privilege whatsoever to exercise episcopal functions in the diocese of another bishop, without the permission of the Ordinary of the place and with regard to persons subordinate to the same Ordinary. If any bishop does otherwise, he will be lawfully suspended from his episcopal functions ...' (Sess. VII, cp. 5, emphasis supplied). "7. It purports to accept John Paul II as pope and yet rejects parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by him in his capacity as supreme legislator (see, e.g., Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, ed. Fr. François Laisney (1988), pp. 176-178). "8. Finally, in 1988 the Society consecrated four bishops, knowing that this was against the express will of the Pope, and then in 1991 proceeded to consecrate a further bishop in a diocese (Campos in Brazil) where, as the Society itself recognizes, there is already a valid bishop. This is contrary to Canon 1013. Furthermore, the Society of St. Pius X cites not a single declaration of a pope or a council (to say nothing of theologians and Church fathers) stating that there may be a legitimate episcopal consecration against the will of the Pope. But according to Pope Pius XII, who was so revered by Archbishop Lefebvre, an episcopal consecration done against the will of the Pope is an offense against divine law. 'No one may legitimately confer episcopal consecration unless in advance the particular papal authorization is in [the consecrating bishop's] possession. Through this criminal act there is carried out a most serious attack on the unity of the Church Itself. Therefore, for such a consecration performed against divine and human law, there is established the penalty of excommunication.' (Apostolorum Principis [1958]). "To sum up, then, here is an organization which pays no regard whatsoever to the commands and laws of legitimate authority in the Church and which refuses to do the express will of the supreme pontiff in matters of great importance for use visible unity of the Church. Put all of these things together and what we have is an autonomous organization, a petite eglise, an independent Church. If this does not constitute schism, what does?...
"...So there we have it. And the response of the SSPX? Well, having written twice to the editor of The Angelus over the Lara case without any response, we decided to give that one a miss this time and save the postage. Bishop Williamson's somewhat brief response to the Lara issue was evidently meant for that of Geringer as well, since he had been sent both sets of correspondences. There was nothing from Dominguez, nor this time from Michael Davies (except a thank you). However, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais came up with a new tactic. We quote the relevant section from his letter: 'For Professor Geringer, in 1988, with the episcopal consecrations of Msgr. Lefebvre, "there is no church of Lefebvre." And for this very reason, he said, the faithful adhering to him are still Catholics.' He adds: "If, one day, Lefebvre should found a Church independent of Rome and if those want to adhere to him, then it would be another thing."
(Letter to John Beaumont, dated December 30th, 1993) "Bishop Tissier de Mallerais puts his faith in the 1988 version of Geringer...
"...To end on a positive note, the one thing that should be emphasized in this whole sorry affair is the extent of the real evidence for the Lefebvrist schism. All in all we have the following items of evidence:
"(a) The decision of the Pope that there is a schism.
"(b) The decision of the Catholic Church to the same effect.
"(c) The teaching of Cardinal Castillo Lara former President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, again, that there is a schism.
"(d) The teaching of Pope Pius XII that an episcopal consecration against the will of the Pope is an offense against divine law as well as against human law (Apostolorum Principis [1958]).
"(e) As a matter of canon law the act of 30th June 1988 fits the definition of schism contained in the Code of Canon Law. It is not any of us who decide this. The Church in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta does so. Canon law can only be interpreted by the law-maker (Canon 16).
"(f) Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus requires Catholics to obey decisions of the Holy See in matters of this kind.
"(g) The Society of St. Pius X is unable to cite from 2000 years of Tradition any Pope, doctor or council to justify episcopal consecration against the express will of the Pope.
"(h) The Society of St. Pius X and its apologists have to misquote a canonist in order to defend their case. In addition as we have shown in 'Schism, Obedience and the Society of St. Pius X,' the SSPX even has to rewrite the Catholic definitions of schism and obedience to justify its position.
"What more evidence do these people want? Our own experience has shown us that even an ex cathedra definition by the Pope, or a direct revelation from Our Lord Himself, would not move some of them. Some would no doubt say, 'But, Cardinal Lara says....' Has it now come to such a stage that, for traditionalists, a schism is decided by the authoritative voice of a Davies, a Scott, or a Williamson? Heaven preserve us from such a break with Tradition. Whatever qualities and merits these people have, it is obvious that not one of them knows what the primacy of Peter is all about."
++++++++++++++++++
One Of The Legacies
"...many have sought refuge in the surrogate authority solution, that is, they have assigned the teaching and disciplinary authority of the Church to someone else besides John Paul II....

"...This system provides a strong and stable sense of security. On the one hand, they say that they recognise the authority of John Paul II. This fact soothes the nerves of the uncomfortable Catholic who obviously does not want to be 'against the Pope.' "On the other hand, the system provides them with the divine right to reject certain teachings of Vatican II, to ignore excommunications, and to distribute sacraments --- even consecrate bishops --- without authorisation, all because of the 'mission from God' which Archbishop Lefebvre possessed.
It is the best of both worlds. Unfortunately it isn't true."[126]
Footnotes:
1. "An Open Letter To Confused Catholics," by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books Ltd. for The Society of St Pius X, p. 9 1986.
2. Ibid. p. 35, Chapter: "The Mass Of All Time Versus The Mass Of Our Time."
3. Ibid. p. 36.
4. Fr. Kevin Robinson, Sermon, August 28, 1996.
5. "Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre", Vol. 2, pp. 378/9, published by The Angelus Press, 1983.
6. Ibid. p. 367.
7. Ibid. p. 369.
8. "Catholic," June-July 1996, pp. 8-9.
9. Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre. ("Catholic," July 83 and Nov. 83, p. 3).
10. "An Open Letter To Confused Catholics," by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books Ltd. for The Society of St Pius X, p. 116, 1986.
11. "Canon Law Digest," Bouscaren and O'Connor, Vol. 4, p. 52.
12. "Pope Paul's New Mass," Vol. III, Footnote to p. 12, published by The Angelus Press, 1980.
13. "The Liturgical Movement, 1840-1970, A Brief History," by Desmond J. McDonnell.
14. "The Last Three Popes and the Jews," p. 303, by Pinchas E. Lapide, 1967, Souvenir Press.
15. "Australian Catholic Record," 1958, p. 58.
16. "The Last Three Popes and the Jews," p. 320, by Pinchas E. Lapide, 1967, Souvenir Press.
17. Fr. Jean Violette, letter of March 19, 1996, to Mr. Max Longford.
18. Fr. Todd Angele letter of May 31, 1996, to the author. 19. "The Roman Catholic," by Fr. Daniel L. Dolan, June 1983.
20. "Catholic," Nov. 83, p. 3
21. "...we do not see any other solutions to the problem than: Freedom to celebrate the Old Rite according to the edition of Liturgical Books authorised by Pope John XXIII." (Archbishop Lefebvre Letter of April 5, 1983, to Sovereign Pontiff, "Catholic," Jul. 84, p. 10.)
22. "Pope Paul's New Mass," Vol III, pp. 12-15, published by The Angelus Press, 1980.
23. "Australian Catholic Record," 1961, pp. 10-13
24. "Catholic," Jul. 84, p. 10. Archbishop Lefebvre Letter of April 5, 1983, to Sovereign Pontiff.
25. "Australian Catholic Record," 1962, p. 152.
26. "Pledge: promise solemnly by pledge of one's honour, word, etc.; bind by solemn promise, etc."
27. "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican," Father François Laisney (also a former Australasian District Superior), p. 77.
28. Fr. Jean Violette's Letter to Faithful, August 27, 1994.
29. Ibid. October 7, 1994
30. Ibid. November 1, 1994.
31. Fr. Jean Violette's letter of January 21, 1995, to the author. See also his Letter to Faithful, March 1, 1995.
32. Fr. Jean Violette's Letter to Faithful, March 1, 1995, and Letter of January 21, 1995, to the author.
33. Fr. Jean Violette's letter of January 21, 1995, to the author. See also Letter to Faithful, March 1, 1995.
34. Fr. Jean Violette's letter of April 18, 1995, to the author.
35. Fr. Kevin Robinson, Sermon, August 28, 1996.
36. See Page 1, with associated footnotes [5] and [6].
37. Fr. James Peek, Holy Cross Seminary Letter To Friends and Benefactors, July 3, 1996, p. 2.
38. "Thou shalt not commit indultery." Bishop Richard Williamson, Hampton Conference, December 4, 1989.
39. "A Response to Michael Davies from Father Laisney," "Catholic," August 1996, p. 9
40. Indult Requiem Mass for Mrs. Catherine Emily Foley, July 4, 1996. Principal Celebrant: Fr. Velmir Maglica, a Melbourne Diocesan secular priest. 41. "Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre," Vol. 1, pp. 347-8, published by The Angelus Press, 1979.
42. "Pope-Sifting, Difficulties with Sedevacantism," by Laszlo Szijarto, "The Angelus," October 1995, p. 5. Mr. Szijarto adds: "We need to remember that our judgements even about the purported 'errors' of Vatican II do not have the Church's authority behind them - and are therefore liable to be mistaken."
43. Fr. Jean Violette's Letter of June 26, 1995, to the author.
44. Fr. James Peek's Holy Cross Seminary Letter To Friends and Benefactors, July 3, 1996, p. 2.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Fr. Jean Violette's Letter of August 27, 1995, to the author; no qualifications as to Latin or vernacular nor complete term: "lawfulness and doctrinally soundness." (or "rectitude")
48. Archbishop Lefebvre's letter of March 8, 1980, to Pope John Paul II, ("Catholic," Jan 84, p. 2.) and Letter of May 9, 1980, to Michael Davies, ("Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre," Vol. 2, p. 367, published by The Angelus Press, 1983.)
49. "It is obvious that there are fewer and fewer valid Masses as the faith of priests become corrupted and they no longer have the intention to do what the Church - which cannot change her intention - has always done. The present day training of those who are called seminarians does not prepare them to accomplish valid Masses." ("An Open Letter To Confused Catholics," by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books Ltd. for The Society of St Pius X, p. 35, 1986)
50. Fr. Kevin Robinson's assertion from the pulpit, August 28, 1996, of Archbishop Lefebvre's "non-disclosure."
51. Fr. Jean Violette's Letter to Faithful, August 27, 1995, pp. 2-3.
52. Archbishop Lefebvre, April 28, 1983, "Catholic," Apr. 86, p. 2.
53. Fr. Schmidberger, "Catholic," Sept. 86, p. 4.
54. Fr. Jean Violette's Letter of January 21, 1995, to the author. See also Letter to Faithful, March 1, 1995.
55. "Yes, absolutely!" Fr. Jean Violette's Letter of January 21, 1995, to author, and Letter to Faithful, March 1, 1995, p. 2.
56. Fr. Jean Violette's Letter of January 21, 1995, to the author.
57. Archbishop Lefebvre in July/August 1989 issue of 30 Days, as reported by Michael Davies in "AD2000" of March 1991.
58. Fr. James Peek's Holy Cross Seminary Letter To Friends and Benefactors, July 3, 1996, p. 1. (The Editor of "Catholic" had described the Pope's pontificate as "at least as that of a weak Pope, at the worst as that of a bad Pope." ["Catholic," Apr. 86, p. 2.], and Michael Davies agreed "that the present pontificate will go down in history as that of a weak, or even bad, Pope." ["Catholic,", June 1986, p. 4])
59. Fr. James Peek's Holy Cross Seminary Letter To Friends and Benefactors, December 7, 1994, p. 4.
60. "I want nothing to do with them ...what I hold as the true religion is other than [sic.] the Catholic Church held up to Pius XII; I deny, the Catholic Church since Vatican II; I concede." Fr. Jean Violette's Letter of January 21, 1995, to the author.
61. Hampton SSPX Bulletins of October 30, 1994 and October 22, 1995 no longer include this requirement.
62. "Q. What are your present relations with the so-called 'sedevacantists?'
"Reply: We have no relations with those who are OPENLY sedevacantist..." (Emphasis added.) Bishop Bernard Fellay, Dec. 8, 1994 for an Italian newspaper. Thus, are SSPX priests who are crypto sedevacantists the Marranos of the late twentieth century?
63. Hampton SSPX Bulletins, eg. Dec. 19, 1993 (for Circumcision of Our Lord), Aug. 7, 1994 (for the Assumption, Mon. Aug. 15), October 30, 1994 (for All Saints), October 22, 1995, (for All Saints), Dec. 31, 1995 (for "Octave of Christmas Day"), and May 12, 1996 (for Ascension Thursday).
64. Fr. James Peek's Holy Cross Seminary Letter To Friends and Benefactors, for "Vigil of the Assumption," 1995, and Oct. 18, 1995. In the former Letter he states (partially correctly, I believe) that "All Sundays, Christmas, Circumcision, Ascension, Assumption and All Saints (are) as observed as a pious practice by all members of FSSPX." I would think that All Sundays and the Assumption (unless on Monday or Saturday) should be included as Holy Days of Obligation.
65. "Catholic," Nov. 83, p. 3.
66. Available from St. Benedicts Book Centre, PO Box 36, Yarra Junction, 3797.
67. A.A.S. 47, pp. 837-47 and Canon Law Digest, Bouscarin and O'Connor, Vol. 4, pp. 49-52.
68. Australasian Catholic Record, 1958, p. 58.
69. Fr. Jean Violette: Letter of 19 May 1996 to Max Longford.
70. Fr. Todd Angele: Letter of 31 May 1996 to F.J. Loughnan.
71. Australasian Catholic Record, 1961, pp. 10-13.
72. Pope Paul's New Mass, by Michael Davies, Vol. III, pp. 12-15.
73. The Third Session, by Xavier Rynne, pp. 65-6.
74. Ibid. p. 66.
75. Fr. Jean Violette, Newsletter June-July, 1996, and "The Ottaviani Intervention," Tan Books and Publishers, 1992 by Anthony Cekada.
76. Can One Accept the Resolutions Made by the Society of Pius V [sic] as Expressed in their August-October Bulletin of 1990?, by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D.:
77. The Society of St Pius X Gets Sick, by Thomas W. Case, Fidelity Magazine, October 1992.
78. The Ottaviani Intervention, p. 3.
79. Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S.: The Latin Mass, Spring 1997, "Catholic," Sept. 1990, and April and November 1991. A series of exchanges appeared from September 1990 to November 1991 in "Catholic" (Edited by Silvester Donald McLean), between Fr. Brian W. Harrison and Mr. Des. J. McDonnell (who maintained that Archbishop Lefebvre had not signed Dignitatis Humanae).
80. Refer to Was Vatican Council II Voided by Pope Pius II's "Execrabilis,?" by John Loughnan, at www.freeyellow.com/members3/matt1618/Execrabilis.html
81. "Catholic," Jan. 1987, p. 6.
82. Ibid. Apr. 1983, p. 3.
83. Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide, by Fr. Noel Barbara. This issue is downloadable from Jim McNally's fred.net/jmcnally
84. smac.edu/history/mgrlefebvre.html
85. Paris Lecture, March 1973 at the invitation of the Union des Intellectuals and the Club de la Culture française. A. Bishop Speaks, Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre, Writings and Addresses 1963-1975, p. 159.
86. Letter from Fr. Coache to Fr. Barbara, 21 Feb. 1974, recorded in Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.
87. Declaration of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "Catholic," Jan. 1987, p. 6, and Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.
88. Who Sent, by Hutton Gibson
89. Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide, by Fr. Noel Barbara
90. Ibid.
91. Le Figaro, 4 August 1976, reported in Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.
92. France-Soir: 4 August 1976, reported in Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.
93. Le Figaro, 4 August 1976, reported in Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.
94. "The Roman Catholic," by Fr. Daniel L. Dolan, June 1983. Dolan entered Econe in January 1973. He was one of the nine U.S.A. Society priests expelled from the SSPX by Archbishop Lefebvre and became a schismatic Thuc line bishop in 1993.
95. Le Monde, 14 Nov. 1976. Mgr. Lefebvre's opinion that the majority of French Catholics support him is over optimistic, we think.
96. Interview with Michael Davies: Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre, Vol. 1, pp. 347-8.
97. "Catholic," Aug./Sept. 1988, p. 1.
98. Letter to Mlle. T. 15 March 1974, reported in Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.
99. Lettre aux amis et bienfaiteurs No. 14, 19 Mar. 1978, reported in Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.
100. Letter to Pope John Paul II, 24 December 1978.
101. Conference at Vienne, 9 Sept. 1975, reported in Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.
102. Allocution at the rally of international Catholic associations, 20 April 1976, reported in Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.
103. Declaration of 8 November 1979, "Catholic," July and November 1983, p. 3.
104. Answer to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, at the time of the conversations of 11 and 12 January 1979.
105. Le coup de Maitre de Satan, St. Gabriel, p. 12 reported in Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.
106. In his answers to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 11 and 12 January 1979.
107. Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide, by Fr. Noel Barbara.
108. Pope Paul's New Mass, by Michael Davies, Vol. III, Footnote to p. 12. (From this we may assume - rightly or wrongly! That the Holy Week ceremonies include the full "Prayers for the Jews.")
109. Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Vol. 2, p. 367., by Michael Davies.
110. Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fide, by Fr. Noel Barbara. Footnote 17.
111. Lefebvre Letter of 5 April 1983 to the Sovereign Pontiff.
112. "Catholic," Nov. 1983, p. 3.
113. The Vatican Decree, "Catholic," Dec. 1984, p. 4.
114. An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by Marcel Lefebvre, p. 116.
115. Ibid. p. 36.
116. Lefebvre in a conference to Society priests at Econe. "Catholic," Dec. 1987, p. 1.
117. Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 77, by Fr. Laisney.
118. A Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre, signed June 19, 1988 - as recorded in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 207, by Fr. Franois Laisney, who was then Editor of The Angelus Press.
119. Was Vatican II Voided By Pope Pius II's "Execrabilis?" (A commentary by F. John Loughnan on Mr. D.J. McDonnell's Article in Oct. 1998 "Catholic."
Also posted to Matt1618's Catholic Apologetics at pweb.netcom.com/~matt1618/TRADIT.html
120. "Catholic," April 1991.
121. Was Vatican II Voided By Pope Pius II's "Execrabilis"?
122. Fr. Kevin Robinson: Sunday 28 July, 1996, at Hampton, Australia.
123. Econe Full Stop, Fr. Noel Barbara, Fortes in Fide.
124. At Bill Grossklas' AGENDA sspx.agenda.tripod.com
125. Ibid.
126. "Bickering Priests," a Catholic Restoration reprint, by Fr. Donald Sanborn, Lent 1994. Sanborn is one of the excommunicated sedevacantist "nine" and was rector of the Society's US seminary before he was expelled by Lefebvre in 1983.

Don't attend their retreats where they indoctrinate you to their cult and belief system. It has nothing to do with spirituality but is more political and a false or distorted faith through brainwashing as is the novus ordo. Your salvation is not free. One of the schismatic positions the SSPX has had since its beginning is not just that they flip flop and are double tongued but they can sift when the pope is not the pope and when he is. If a pope says the Jews are our brothers in Christ, such a statement is manifest heresy and this is not the pope but an imposter. SSPX says he's the pope but he is leading to heresy. He is not a heretic to them. They when they agree the Jews and Hindu's can be saved for this reason or that exception he is the pope but if he worships in a Buddhist Temple he is not the pope anymore but he will be the pope again if he repents of this heresy. The SSPX is a wind blowing in many directions and lack faith in Christ, they sift issues of dogma, rites, sacraments, who is a catholic and who is not. This is dangerous and a scandal to those who follow them. Also the priests of the SSPX do not make vows of poverty, chastity and obedience which are vows of religion. The vows they make are to the Society. You can see what Most Holy Family Monastery has to say about SSPX, what SSPV say, The Four Marks paper, the CMRI and other sedevacantist groups. Other traditionalists have their criticisms of SSPX. Unfortunately A. Lefebvre caused too many mistakes, left things in a poor way and his many failures have put more fuel on the fire that cannot be put out.

For those who defend heretics: "If anyone does not anathematize... all... heretics who have been condemned by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church... let such a one be anathema." (2nd Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. Canon 11).
"Since... the cursed perversity of heretics... has so increased that now they exercise their wickedness not as some in secret, but manifest their error publicly and win over the simple and weak to their opinion, we resolve to cast them, their defenders and those who receive them under anathema." (3rd Lateran Council), 1179, Ch. 27. Such that do this like SSPX or any traditional catholic whoever, whatever sort they may be are outside the Church, anathema, and are automatically excommunicated. See the councils of the Church in depth.