CONFUSION

"Who can deny that Catholics in the latter part of the twentieth century are confused?...  Only a short time ago the path was clearly marked; either one followed it or one did not..."[1], wrote Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1986.

Regarding that state of confusion, he asked:

"How can the ordinary faithful decide?  For the validity of a mass there exist essential conditions; matter, form, intention and the validly ordained priest.   If these conditions are filled one cannot see how to conclude invalidity.   The prayers of the Offertory, the Canon and the priest's communion are necessary for the integrity of the sacrifice and the sacrament but not for its validity.  Cardinal Mindzenty pronouncing in secret in his prison the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, so as to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord without being seen by his guards, was certainly accomplishing the sacrifice and the sacrament." [2]

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:

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 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]

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:

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 Ecône 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 Ecône."
• Out of obedience to his Superior: "...at ordination...the Superior General, asks, 'Promittis mihi et successoribus meis...'"[18] (Emphasis as in the original.)

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":

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

(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]

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

• "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.]

• 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!

• "I am denying what Mr. Davies says you can't: that the New Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church." [37]

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]

• "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?"

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?

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?

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:

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:

"Bishop Williamson: 'They are taking the easy way out in order to follow the easy path.' "

 POPE OR NO POPE - WHO CARES?

• 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]

• Pope John XXIII’s Motu Proprio Corpus Rubricarum (of 25 July 1960) for the Breviary and Missal decreed:

• 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] No wonder Archbishop Lefebvre’s nose was becoming increasingly "out of joint"!

• The "Ottaviani Intervention" (dated 5 June 1969) was written by a group of Roman theologians headed by Archbishop Lefebvre.  Fr. M.L. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., was responsible for its drafting.[75]  Des Lauriers later taught at Ecône and, finally, on May 7, 1981, he became a sede vacantist schismatic Thuc line Bishop. [76]

• 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]

• 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:

• 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."

• Negatively: On 29th July 1976 under the shock of the suspensus a divinis (of 22 July), Mgr. 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:

• 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

• 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")

• 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]

• 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]

• 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:

• 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:

• 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.

• Positively: On 5 May 1988, Lefebvre signed a PROTOCOL OF ACCORD for himself & Society Members:

• Positively: The Protocol, however, was accepted!

• Fr Robinson of Hampton, Australia, during the Sermon about the Novus Ordo stated that Lefebvre

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

A composite extract by F. John Loughnan from John Beaumont and John Walsh's

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:

"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:

"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:

"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."

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 & 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 & 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:

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, Inc. Copyright © 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).  Don McLean definitely sided with McDonnell's false opinion.

80. Refer to Was Vatican Council II Voided by Pope Pius II's "Execrabilis,?" by John Loughnan, at http://www.freeyellow.com/members3/matt1618/Execrabilis.html

81. "Catholic," Jan. 1987, p.6.

82. Ibid. Apr. 1983, p.3.

83. Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide, by Fr. Noél Barbara.  This issue is downloadable from Jim McNally's http://fred.net/jmcnally/

84. http://smac.edu/history/mgrlefebvre.html

86. Letter from Fr. Coache to Fr. Barbara, 21 Feb. 1974, recorded in Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.

87. Declaration of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "Catholic," Jan. 1987, p.6, and Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.

88. Who Sent, by Hutton Gibson

89. Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide, by Fr. Noél Barbara

90. Ibid.

93. Le Figaro, 4 August 1976, reported in Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.

94. "The Roman Catholic," by Fr. Daniel L. Dolan, June 1983.   Dolan entered Ecône 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 Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.

99. Lettre aux amis et bienfaiteurs No. 14, 19 Mar. 1978, reported in Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.

100. Letter to Pope John Paul II, 24 December 1978.

101. Conference at Vienne, 9 Sept. 1975, reported in Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.

102. Allocution at the rally of international Catholic associations, 20 April 1976, reported in Ecône 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 Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide.

106. In his answers to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 11 and 12 January 1979.

107. Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide, by Fr. Noél 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. Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide, by Fr. Noél 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 Ecône. "Catholic," Dec. 1987, p.1.

117. Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p.77, by Fr. François Laisney.

118. A Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre, signed June 19, 1988 - as recorded in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p.207, by Fr. François Laisney, who was then Editor of The Angelus Press.

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 http://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. Ecône Full Stop, Fr. Noél Barbara, Fortes in Fide.

124. At Bill Grossklas' AGENDA web-site: http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com

125. Ibid.