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: