Now that the Dominicans of Avrille have officially joined the Resistance, they will need to depend on us for donations.


In Canada, please donate here:


The Association of Saint Dominic
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
201 – 21 Street East
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7K 0B8
Bank Account: 40-91531

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Website Name Change

1 March 2014

We have changed our website name to “Our Lady of Good Success Mission” as this accurately reflects the name of our Mass centre.  We continue to support the SSPX-Marian Corps priests and all priests who continue the memory and mission of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Do Good From Within?

25 February 2014

There are many sincere Traditionalists who believe that they could do more good from within the Conciliar Church.


Once the SSPX is regularized, the diocesan bishop will have some recommendations to make the chapels more relevant to the community. Statues such as the one below may well become the norm.


The photographs were taken in November, 2013 outside St Mary’s Church in Owen Sound, Ontario. The statue is prominently displayed to catch the attention of people as they drive by. It certainly caught my attention!


To those Traditionalists I would say: Be careful what you wish for!


Sister Constance, TOSF


IMG_1863 IMG_1868

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

French Families Are Ready

25 February 2014

It would appear that French Traditionalists are taking a stand against Menzingen and are ready to fight for their Faith. They are against any sort of agreement/recognition with Conciliar Rome.
Below is an open letter written by a group of Catholic Families in France to Bishop Fellay in January 2014. We are hesitant to encourage the Google translation because it does not do justice to the sentiments expressed and are hoping that a reliable translation will become available.
Here is a brief recap of the open letter:
A group of families in France sent a warning to Bishop Fellay that they will no longer stand idle while their Faith is being destroyed as it was in the 1960’s and 1970’s. They have had enough of his dishonest and unjust treatment of priests, many of whom are their own sons. They will directly support the priests who leave the SSPX.
The French families are blaming Bishop Fellay and his advisors for having caused confusion and division within the SSPX. They are reminding Bishop Fellay that the SSPX does not belong to him but is God’s answer to the prayers of the Faithful: “We are the sons and daughters of St. Joan of Arc and of Archbishop Lefebvre”.
Perhaps the Eldest Daughter of the Church is ready for battle!
Sister Constance

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Revised Mission Statement

25 February 2014

A revised Mission Statement has been posted today.  Please see here.  This Mission Statement was approved by the General Council of Our Lady of Good Success Mission on February 9, 2014.

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

I would like to emphasize a point that is being overlooked with the controversy over the video (which has now been removed at
Fr Girouard’s point is not only to show that Fr Rostand and his video-making are fake, but to show that the Neo-SSPX is making major mistakes in the video “Against the Rumours” as well as in comportment.
Fr Girouard is making these points (which I am quoting in part):
At minute 6:40, Fr Rostand says they [the SSPX relations with Rome] had been broken after the consecrations of bishops in 1988 (true!), and were resumed on the initiative of Cardinal Hoyos in 2000 (false!)
At minute 08:54, Fr Rostand says that some of the pre-conditions requested earlier by Bishop Fellay for negotiations with Rome were basically fulfilled: “Some steps have been made… the Motu Proprio came out; not as perfect as we had wished, but a step towards the freedom of the Mass…” Second big blooper! Not only this document is not perfect, but it is evil!
At minute 09:07, Fr Rostand continues: “…then the lifting of the excommunications… we definitely also have some reservations about it, but these were important steps…” Third big blooper!
And Fr Girouard’s 4th point is even more important, so please read it.
Please re-read the entire editorial at
as Fr Girouard would like his points to be understood, rather than have people focus solely on the silliness/inappropriateness of the bloopers video.
Father Girouard also wishes to emphasize that although the video is no longer posted at vimeo, it is still up on Youtube at

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Since especially after the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre held to the principle that he would not negotiate with Rome for a canonical regularization until she accepted the teachings of the pre-Vatican II Magisterium:


“I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue.  No more.  I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level:  ‘Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you?  Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII?  Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings?  Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath?  Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?  If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk!  As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible.  It is useless.’”1


After the Archbishop’s death in 1991, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) leadership continued to keep the same principle and fortified it during the 2006 SSPX General Chapter:


“…….the contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity.  The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement.”2


It was not until February 2, 2012 that this principle was publicly made known to have changed.  During a sermon a St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Bishop Bernard Fellay said the following:


“We told them (i.e., Rome) very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things (i.e., Vatican II, etc.), then we are ready.”3


So the SSPX leadership was willing to become canonically regularized as long as Rome did not expect the SSPX to change from its current position.  However, this caused an uproar within the SSPX, including the other three SSPX Bishops:


“Your Excellency, Fathers, take care!  You want to lead the Society to a point where it will no longer be able to turn back, to a profound division of no return and, if you end up to such an agreement, it will be with powerful destroying influences who will not keep it.  If up until now the bishops of the Society have protected it, it is precisely because Mgr. Lefebvre refused a practical agreement.  Since the situation has not changed substantially, since the condition prescribed by the Chapter of 2006 was by no means carried out (a doctrinal change in Rome which would permit a practical agreement), at least listen to your Founder.  It was right 25 years ago.  It is right still today.  On his behalf, we entreat you:  do not engage the Society in a purely practical agreement.”4


Bishop Fellay and the First and Second Assistants of the SSPX, Frs. Niklaus Pfluger and Alain-Marc Nely, responded to the three SSPX Bishops and questioned their acceptance of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI:


“Reading your letter one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church with its seat in Rome is truly the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured for sure from head to foot, but a Church which nevertheless still has for its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One has the impression that you are so scandalised that you no longer accept that that could still be true. It Benedict XVI still the legitimate pope for you?”5


This response brought about a debate within and without the SSPX as to how exactly the Conciliar Church (i.e., the new religion started at Vatican II) is related to the Catholic Church.  Is the Conciliar Church really and truly distinct from the Catholic Church or can we only speak of it in an analogical sense?  When Archbishop Lefebvre referenced the “Conciliar Church”, what did he really mean?  The debate became so heated that there were some who used this disagreement to claim that those who resisted the new position of the SSPX leadership were really Sedevacantists.  Others claimed that the “resistors” had a false understanding of ecclesiology and that this false understanding was the basis of their resistance.6  Whereas there can be legitimate debate about how we are to understand the crisis of Faith in Rome and how it has “infected” the Catholic Church, it is the purpose of this article to show that this debate need not take place.  After all, there was hardly a peep on this matter amongst the SSPX clergy prior to the leadership’s change in position.  Instead, we shall show that the principle of “no canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution” (or more accurately, “a canonical recognition cannot be had if it is not based on the Catholic Faith” – we shall keep to the former wording as it is the one most often used) is itself a Catholic principle due to its intimate relationship with fundamental Catholic doctrine on the unity of the Church and therefore cannot be transgressed without offending the sensus catholicus.


We look to Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical “Satis Cognitum” to know and understand what constitutes the unity of the Catholic Church:


“But He (i.e., Jesus Christ), indeed, Who made this one Church, also gave it unity, that is, He made it such that all who are to belong to it must be united by the closest bonds, so as to form one society, one kingdom, one body…..


“Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful – ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. iv., 5).  That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith.  And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions:  ‘I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment’ (I Cor. i., 10).  Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves.  Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faithIt is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized.”7


Pope Leo XIII continues:


“Besides Holy Writ it was absolutely necessary to insure this union of men’s minds – to effect and preserve unity of ideas – that there should be another principle.  This the wisdom of God requires:  for He could not have willed that the faith should be one if He did not provide means sufficient for the preservation of this unity; and this Holy Writ clearly sets forth as We shall presently point out.  Assuredly the infinite power of God is not bound by anything, all things obey it as so many passive instruments.  In regard to this external principle, therefore, we must inquire which one of all the means in His power Christ did actually adopt.  For this purpose it is necessary to recall in thought the institution of Christianity.”8


This “external principle” that Pope Leo XIII goes on to speak about is the Magisterium of the Church and ultimately the Pope.


Note that Pope Leo XIII states that “Faith” is “a virtue which is the first of those which unites man to God”.  This “Faith” is of the “greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity”.  In other words, we can say that “Faith” is an internal principle of unity.  On the other hand, whereas Pope Leo XIII most definitely extolls the Magisterium of the Church as a principle of unity, it is only an external principle.  This we can easily understand by the truth that Our Lord did not need to assign St. Peter and his successors to teach and govern the Church.  He could have done this Himself until the end of the world or could have even established His angels or saints as His representatives on earth.  However, Jesus Christ cannot forgo our belief in Him.  As St. Paul teaches, “Without faith it is impossible to please God”.9  And it is to this “Faith” that the successors of St. Peter are duty bound to teach and preserve:


“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the ages.”10


Therefore, if a pope was to teach a doctrine different than that of Christ, he would fail in his duty.  And any attempt to impose this teaching by censures or penalties would be an abuse of the authority for which it had been given him by Christ.


Now throughout the history of the Church, the Popes have generally been faithful to their office to teach and preserve the Faith.  However, we live in an age where several popes since the Second Vatican Council have taught a new doctrine, thereby posing a problem of conscience for bishops, priests, and faithful alike.  What do we do?  Well, we had and still have a model to follow, and that is the mission and memory of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  Most definitely the Archbishop made mistakes on the way (e.g., signing the 1988 Protocol), but nobody would be flawless given this unprecedented Church crisis.  Nonetheless, one of the most important and definitive principles that the Archbishop left us is that there can be “no canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution”.  As we’ve mentioned earlier, this principle is itself a Catholic one due to its intimate relationship with fundamental Catholic doctrine on the unity of the Church and therefore cannot be transgressed without offending the sensus catholicus.  Let us continue.


“Canon law is the assemblage of rules or laws relating to faith, morals, and discipline, prescribed or propounded to Christians by ecclesiastical authority…..The definition shows that the object of canon law is ‘faith, morals, and discipline’; and nothing but these is its object.”11


An object is a thing towards which another thing is directed.  On the contrary, a thing which is directed away from its object cannot be said to faithfully address it.  The object of canon law must include “faith”, at least implicitly.  This would mean that any piece of legislation by the Church authorities that contravenes this object or at least does not assume it, cannot be said to be faithful to it.


Let us now sum up the key points:


1)      Faith is an internal principle of the unity of the Church.

2)      The Pope is an external principle of the unity of the Church, whose office is directed towards the teaching and preservation of the Faith, the internal principle.

3)      Canon law has Faith as one of its objects and must therefore faithfully address it or at least assume it.


Given these key points, then, if the SSPX makes an agreement with Rome without first resolving the doctrinal differences, we can conclude that:


1)      The agreement would not represent a true and authentic Catholic unity.  This would hold true even if the Pope did not require the SSPX to change one ounce of its doctrinal position.  As a matter of fact, this would hold true even if the SSPX was not required to change its doctrinal position and the Pope commanded the SSPX to become regularized under the pretext that it concerns the unity of the Church.  The reason is because the Pope is only an external principle of the unity of the Church and this external principle is directed towards preserving the Faith, the internal principle.  Any position of the Pope showing indifference or opposition towards this internal principle makes his command, under the pretext that it is a matter of the unity of the Church, null and void because his command would not serve the purpose of achieving a true and authentic Catholic unity.  It simply would not be true that the matter concerns the unity of the Church.

2)      Since the unity in the Faith would not be one of the objects of the agreement, it could not therefore be called “canonical” in the sense that the Church has historically applied the term.  The reality instead is that any agreement made between the SSPX and Rome not based on the unity in the Faith would be a mere contractual relationship analogous to that of a serf and his lord.

3)      Those Traditional Catholics who oppose a canonical regularization of the SSPX are not heretical, schismatical, or disobedient.  It is probably true that most of these Traditional Catholics do not consciously oppose it because of the reasons explained in this article; rather, they simply sense that the SSPX placing itself under the Church authorities would present a grave danger, by circumstance, to the Faith of its bishops, priests, and faithful.  The history since the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations definitely favours the judgement of these people in this respect.  Just look at what has happened to the several religious communities who have joined Rome – they have fallen in line with Vatican II.  The Archbishop did not have the luxury to witness the fall of these religious communities, but he predicted it!  Nevertheless, the key point is that their position can be defended from a theological standpoint and not one simply based on the present circumstances in which the Church finds herself.




  1. Interview of Archbishop Lefebvre Given to “Fideliter” Magazine, November-December 1988.
  2. Declaration of the 2006 SSPX General Chapter.
  3. February 2, 2012 Sermon of Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, U.S.A.
  4. April 7, 2012 Letter from Three Bishops to the SSPX General Council.
  5. April 14, 2012 Letter from the SSPX General Council to Three Bishops.
  7. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church), June 29, 1896, Paragraph 6, Unity in Faith.
  8. Ibid., Paragraph 7, The Kind of Unity of Faith Commanded by Christ.
  9. Hebrews 11:6.
  10. First Vatican Council, Chapter 4, On the Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff.
  11. Addis, William and Arnold, Thomas, A Catholic Dictionary, 1887, The Catholic Publication Society Co., New York.
 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre | Tagged: |

Well worth reading as usual.

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

“To accept the Council is not a problem for us” (Bishop Fellay)


The following document is self-explanatory. The original in French follows.


Through the efforts of Fr. David Hewko and per his request, an English translation of the 2001 Interview of Bp. Fellay by La Liberte, previously unavailable, follows.


La Liberté, May 11th 2001
This interview was published in the Swiss Valaisan daily newspaper La Liberté on Friday May 11th, under the title Écône Wants Unity Without Concessions.
Small talk or real negotiations? Since the end of last year, the Vatican and the traditionalists of Écône have recommenced dialogue. The starting point of the outline for discussions: The pilgrimage of the Society of St. Pius X to Rome on the occasion of the Holy Year. Since then, several meetings have taken place; the last one would have taken place last week, as is rumoured from Écône. Of what do both parties discuss? If there is still dialogue, what is at stake? The Vatican is silent: Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission (in charge of traditionalist movements) will only speak when he has results to present, as it has been made known to the newsroom. On Ecône’s side, people are more talkative. Successor of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre at the head of the Society, Bishop Bernard Fellay, one of four bishops whose consecration provoked the “schism” in 1988, explains his position in an interview given to La Liberté, the  St. Galler Tagblatt  and Basler Zeitung.

1-    La Liberté: Did you expect Rome to seize the occasion of your pilgrimage to renew the dialogue?
Bp. Bernard Fellay: – There were forerunning signs. A year ago, Msgr. Perl, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission declared that the moment had come to deal with the Society. We were surprised at the extent and the speed with which Rome changed to a position almost radically opposite.
2- Why this urgency on the part of Rome?
– The Pope is coming to the end of his pontificate. He who wanted to be the champion of unity tries to remove this stain on his pontificate. Why has there not been any reconciliation beforehand? I think that Rome needed to realize that we are not as narrow-minded as is said.
3- For whom is the discussion more complicated, for you or for Rome?
– For us, there is a problem of trust. As regards to us, Rome has behaved in a destructive manner for many years. This attitude is unacceptable and must disappear. Rome’s actual tendency is totally different. We certainly have a right to ask ourselves why.
We are awaiting tangible answers on that point.
4- And what are the Vatican’s sensitive points?
– It is difficult to answer while the elements are still on the table. I would say simply that Rome seeks an extremely practical solution without approaching the fundamental questions.
5- What do you concretely wish from these discussions?
– That Rome says that priests can always celebrate the Old Mass. And the other element is that the declaration of the sanctions be retracted (excommunication of bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre; note from the editor).
6- What are the concessions that the Society is prepared to make for this reconciliation?
– We are ready to discuss, we even ask for discussion. We say to Rome: See for yourself, our movement is a valid response to the situation in which the Church finds itself. We ask that Rome consider carefully the reasons which are behind our attitude, which until now has never been done.
7- More concretely?
– We are ready to live with these people who have separated themselves more from us than we from them.  This means recognition of the authority of the bishop, technically already effective. We feel Catholic, indeed. Our problem consists in knowing what is the reference.

8- Some within the Church put as a prerequisite condition a recognition of all of the Councils.
– To accept the Council is not a problem for us. There is, however, a criterion of discernment. And that criterion is that which has always been taught and believed: Tradition. From which there stems a need for clarification.
9- Are you already speaking of this concretely with Rome?
– No, and that is why the discussions are not getting anywhere. Rome tells us that it would take too long to discuss all the details of the differences, but if we do not discuss them, they will remain entire.
10- Do you consider this urgent?
– Not as much as for Rome.
11- But do you not fear that time will separate you from one another?
– On the contrary.
12- Does the Society of Saint Pius X speak unanimously?
– Fundamentally, yes, contrary to what some would like to have others believe.
13- Who decides to have contacts with Rome, who gauges the results?
– From the moment that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre decided to consecrate bishops, it was clear that relations with Rome were the responsibility of the Superior of the Society. Consequently, mine.
14- Does Rome propose to the Society a personal prelature like that of Opus Dei?
– Let us say that things are going in that direction. The idea would be to give the bishops a real jurisdiction over the faithful.
15- And the Society of St. Pius X, to what status does it aspire?
– We need liberty of action. The faithful who wish to follow the Old Mass must be able to do so without harassment. The solution which is offered to the Fraternity of St. Peter (traditionalist movement which remained faithful to the Vatican; note from the editor) is unlivable: We let the local bishops decide everything, they who are, for the most part, radically opposed to Tradition. The reason which is evoked most often, which is false in my opinion, is that bi-ritualism would be unmanageable. But the bishops rightly perceive the liberty given to the Old Mass as a questioning of the post-conciliar reforms.
16- Questioning which you continue to wish for?
– That gives the impression that we reject all of Vatican II. However, we keep 95% of it. It is more to a spirit that we are opposed, to an attitude towards the change given as a postulate: Everything changes in the world, therefore the Church must change. There is here a subject for discussion because it is undeniable that the Church has lost a formidable influence in the last half-century. She still has an influence, but as an institution; the real influence, that of the bishops for example, is very weak. The Church is aware of this, but she acts as if she no longer has the solution. Her words are not clear. Look at the reaction at the moment of Dominus Jesus!
17- Yet was it not a “clear speech?”
– No. There are in the text some clear things, and it is against those that the “progressivists” reacted. But the extremely strong formulations, to which we are no longer accustomed and which pleased me, are moderated in almost every sentence with additions from the Council.
18- Are those formulations a sign for you that Rome approaches progressively to your positions?
– I’m not sure of it, precisely because of the mixture. We really have the impression that Rome is obliged to tread cautiously in order to maintain the unity in the Church.
19- Putting yourself in the shoes of John Paul II, how would you handle the real diversity of the Church?
– I think that we must return to the principles; to the nature of the Church, her mission, her being. The solutions brought to a real problem are too human, although there is certainly a human aspect in the Church. Now, one is looking, at all costs, for unity, which is certainly a great good, but not an end. It is the Faith that causes the unity. If, for the sake of unity, one sets aside a portion of Revelation, of which the Church is the depository, we touch the unity. On the contrary, if we affirm strongly those truths, there will necessarily be divisions. They already exist. And that is why we ask Rome to think twice before reintegrating us.
20- What would reconciliation with Rome change for you?
– Rome would recognize this position as valid, at least fundamentally.
21- A valid one among others or “the” valid one?
– The position of Rome, diplomatically and politically speaking, will certainly be that of pluralism – even if she believes the opposite. We ourselves are very prudent: For us, in the Church, there are some valid options and others that are not.
22- Do you suffer from divisions within the Church?
– When in one’s family things go wrong, it hurts. I do not suffer directly from the excommunication. But the state of the Church touches me. That, yes.
23- Some faithful of Ecône have recently made people talk: Anti-abortion posters, publicity page against the Gay Pride in Sion. What do you think about their action?
– I notice that they are not the only ones who are against the behavior of the Gay Pride parade in Sion. The bishop himself clearly stated what he thought. As to the manner, it is totally normal that those who are against something may let others know, and that freedom of expression be not unilateral.
24- But on the manner?
– I did not see anything very offensive on that page.
25- Not even “Aunts in Sion, diabolical temptation?”
– “Diabolical,” the bishop says it. When trying to promote an idea, one tries to find something that draws the attention, even if it is shocking. From that aspect, I think that it was well done (laughter). I think that there is a lot of hypocrisy behind the reactions to this publicity. To hold a Gay Pride in Sion, that is provocation, and it is totally normal that one react. It is unjust that one always justifies those who destroy Christian values.
26- In Fribourg, a Catholic city, there was no similar reaction to the Gay Pride of 1999.
– When one is half dead, one no longer reacts.
–Translated by the Quebec City Resistance
The Interview in French:
La Liberté, 11 mai 2001
Cette interview a été publiée dans le quotidien suisse valaisan La Liberté, le vendredi 11 mai, sous le titre « Ecône veut l’unité sans rien céder ».
Discussions de couloir ou véritables négociations? Depuis la fin de l’année dernière, le Vatican et les traditionalistes d’Ecône se reparlent. Point de départ de cette ébauche de rapprochement: le pèlerinage de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X à Rome à l’occasion de l’Année sainte. Depuis, plusieurs rencontres ont eu lieu; la dernière daterait de la semaine dernière, glisse-t-on du côté d’Ecône. De quoi les parties parlent-elles? Quels sont les enjeux de ce dialogue, si dialogue il y a toujours? Le Vatican se tait: le cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, président de la commission Ecclesia Dei (en charge des mouvements traditionalistes) ne s’exprimera que quand il aura des résultats à présenter, fait-on savoir à la salle de presse. Du côté d’Ecône, on se montre plus bavard. Successeur de Mgr Marcel Lefebvre à la tête de la Fraternité, Mgr Bernard Fellay, un des quatre évêques dont la consécration provoqua le ‘schisme’ de 1988, s’explique dans un entretien accordé à «La Liberté», au «St. Galler Tagblatt» et à la «Basler Zeitung».
1- La Liberté: Vous attendiez-vous à ce que Rome saisisse l’occasion de votre pèlerinage pour renouer le dialogue?
Bernard Fellay: – Il y avait des signes avant-coureurs. Il y a une année, Mgr Perl, secrétaire de la commission Ecclesia Dei avait déclaré que le moment était venu de s’occuper de la Fraternité. Notre surprise est venue de l’ampleur et de la rapidité avec lesquelles Rome a dépassé une position presque radicalement contraire.
2- Pourquoi cette urgence du côté de Rome?
– Le pape arrive à la fin de son pontificat. Lui qui s’est voulu le champion de l’unité essaie de supprimer cette tache sur son pontificat. Pourquoi n’y a-t-il pas eu de rapprochement avant? Je pense que Rome avait besoin de constater que nous ne sommes pas aussi carrés que ce qui se dit.
3- Pour qui la discussion est-elle la plus compliquée, pour vous ou pour Rome?
– Pour nous, il y a un problème de confiance. Rome s’est conduite de manière destructrice pendant des années à notre égard. Cette attitude est inadmissible et doit disparaître. Le mouvement actuel de Rome envers nous est totalement différent. On est certainement en droit de se demander pourquoi. Sur ce point, nous attendons des réponses tangibles.
4- Et quels sont les points sensibles du côté du Vatican?
– Difficile de répondre alors que ces éléments sont encore sur la table. Je dirais simplement que Rome cherche une solution extrêmement pratique sans aborder les questions de fond.
5- Qu’attendez-vous concrètement de ces discussions?
– Que Rome dise que les prêtres peuvent toujours célébrer l’ancienne messe. L’autre élément, c’est le retrait de la déclaration des sanctions (excommunication des évêques consacrés en 1988 par Mgr Lefebvre, ndlr.)
6- Quelles sont les concessions que la Fraternité est prête à faire pour permettre ce rapprochement?
– Nous sommes prêts à discuter, nous demandons même la discussion. Nous disons à Rome: voyez vous-mêmes, notre mouvement est une réponse valable à la situation dans laquelle se trouve l’Église. On demande que Rome veuille bien considérer les raisons qui sont derrière notre attitude, ce qui jusqu’à aujourd’hui ne s’est jamais fait.
7- Plus concrètement?
– Nous sommes prêts à vivre avec ce monde qui s’est davantage séparé de nous que nous de lui. Cela veut dire reconnaissance de l’autorité de l’évêque, déjà effective en principe. Nous nous sentons catholiques, en effet. Notre problème est de savoir quelle est la référence.
8- Certains au sein de l’Église posent comme condition préalable la reconnaissance de tous les conciles.
– Accepter le concile ne nous fait pas problème. Il y a un critère de discernement quand même. Et ce critère, c’est ce qui a toujours été enseigné et cru: la Tradition. D’où un besoin de clarifications.
9- Vous en parlez déjà concrètement avec Rome?
– Non, et c’est pourquoi les discussions sont au point mort. Rome nous dit que cela prendrait trop de temps de discuter dans le détail des divergences, mais si nous n’en discutons pas, elles resteront entières.
10- Y a-t-il pour vous urgence?
– Pas autant que pour Rome.
11- Mais ne craignez-vous pas que le temps ne vous éloigne l’un de l’autre?
– Au contraire.
12- La Fraternité Saint-Pie X parle-t-elle d’une seule voix?
– Fondamentalement, oui, contrairement à ce que certains voudraient faire croire.
13- Qui décide d’avoir des contacts avec Rome, qui en jauge les résultats?
– Dès le moment où Mgr Lefebvre a décidé la consécration des évêques, il était clair que les relations avec Rome étaient du ressort du supérieur de la Fraternité. Donc du mien.
14- Rome propose-t-elle à la Fraternité une prélature personnelle du style de celle de l’Opus Dei?
– Disons que cela va dans cette direction. L’idée serait d’accorder aux évêques une véritable juridiction sur les fidèles.
15- Et la Fraternité Saint-Pie X, à quel statut aspire-t-elle?
– Il nous faut une liberté d’action. Il faut que les fidèles qui désirent suivre l’ancienne messe puissent le faire sans brimade. La solution qui a été accordée à la Fraternité Saint-Pierre (mouvement traditionaliste resté fidèle au Vatican, n.d.l.r.) est invivable: on laisse les évêques locaux tout décider, eux qui sont pour la plupart radicalement opposés à la tradition. La raison qui est invoquée le plus souvent, fausse à mon avis, est que le biritualisme serait ingérable. Mais des évêques perçoivent très justement dans la liberté accordée à l’ancienne messe une remise en question des réformes post-conciliaires.
16- Remise en question que vous continuez de souhaiter?
– Cela donne l’impression que nous rejetons tout de Vatican II. Or, nous en gardons 95%. C’est plus à un esprit que nous nous opposons, à une attitude devant le changement porté comme postulat: tout change dans le monde, donc l’Église doit changer. Il y a là un sujet de discussion, car il est indéniable que l’Église a perdu ce dernier demi-siècle une influence formidable. Elle a encore une influence, mais en tant qu’institution; l’influence réelle, celle des évêques par exemple, est très faible. L’Église en prend conscience, mais elle fait comme si elle n’avait plus la solution. Sa parole n’est plus claire. Regardez la réaction au moment de Dominus Jesus!
17- C’était une «parole claire», pourtant, non?
– Non. Il y a dans le texte des choses claires, et c’est contre elles que les «progressistes» ont réagi. Mais les formulations extrêmement fortes, auxquelles on n’était plus habitué et qui m’ont fait plaisir, sont modérées presque à chaque phrase par des apports du concile.
18- Ces formulations sont-elles pour vous un signe que Rome se rapproche progressivement de vos positions?
– Je n’en suis pas sûr, précisément à cause du mélange. On a vraiment l’impression que Rome, pour maintenir l’unité dans l’Eglise, est obligée de ménager la chèvre et le chou.
19- En vous mettant dans la peau de Jean-Paul II, comment géreriez-vous la diversité, bien réelle, de l’Eglise?
– Je pense qu’il faut revenir aux principes. A la nature de l’Eglise, sa mission, son être. Les solutions apportées à un problème réel sont trop humaines, même s’il y a certainement un côté humain dans l’Eglise. On cherche actuellement à tout prix l’unité, qui est certes un grand bien, mais pas une fin. C’est la foi qui cause l’unité. Si pour le bien de l’unité on met de côté une partie de la Révélation dont l’Eglise est dépositaire, on touche l’unité. Au contraire, si on affirme fortement ces vérités, forcément il va y avoir des divisions. Elles existent déjà. C’est d’ailleurs pourquoi nous demandons à Rome de réfléchir à deux fois avant de nous reprendre.
20- Que changerait pour vous une réconciliation avec Rome?
– Rome reconnaîtrait cette position au moins fondamentalement comme valable.
21- Une valable parmi d’autres ou «la» valable?
– La position de Rome, diplomatiquement et politiquement parlant, sera certainement celle du pluralisme – même si elle pensait le contraire. Nous sommes nous-mêmes très prudents: pour nous, dans l’Eglise, il y a d’autres options valables et d’autres qui ne le sont pas.
22- Souffrez-vous des divisions à l’intérieur de l’Eglise?
– Quand dans sa famille ça va mal, ça fait mal. Je ne souffre pas directement de l’excommunication. Mais l’état de l’Eglise me touche, ça oui.
23- Des fidèles d’Ecône ont récemment fait parler: affiches anti-avortement, page publicitaire contre la Gay Pride à Sion. Que pensez-vous de leur action?
– Je remarque qu’ils ne sont pas les seuls à ne pas être d’accord avec la tenue de la Gay Pride à Sion. L’évêque lui-même a dit clairement ce qu’il en pensait. Quant à la manière, il est tout à fait normal que ceux qui sont contre puissent le faire savoir, et que la liberté d’expression ne soit pas unilatérale.
24- Mais sur la manière?
– Je n’ai pas vu grand-chose d’offensant sur cette page.
25- Même pas «Tantes à Sion, tentation diabolique»?
– «Diabolique», c’est l’évêque qui le dit. Quand on essaie de faire passer une pensée, on essaie de trouver quelque chose qui accroche, même si ça choque. De ce côté-là, je pense que c’était réussi (rires). Je trouve qu’il y a beaucoup d’hypocrisie derrière les réactions à cette publicité. Faire une Gay Pride à Sion, ça, c’est de la provocation, et c’est tout à fait normal qu’on réagisse. Ce n’est pas juste que l’on donne toujours raison à ceux qui démolissent les valeurs chrétiennes.
26- A Fribourg, ville catholique, il n’y a pas eu de réaction semblable à la Gay Pride de 1999.
– Quand on est à moitié mort, on ne réagit plus.



The French is also available here:

They are not even embarrassed about it!


 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

Father Jean’s Handout

7 February 2014

As noted in the comments by Suzanne, here is the document


The document mentioned in footnote (i) is available under


In memory of a principal in danger of extinction:



If Bishop Freppel rightly noted that the abandoning of principles inevitably leads to catastrophe, Cardinal Pie leaves us with some hope in affirming that even a small number of faithful who remain true to those principles is enough to safeguard their integrity and thus keep up a chance of restoring order.


However, since the General Chapter in July 2012, the leadership of the SSPX seems to have abandoned a principle that it had hitherto strongly held; namely that it is impossible to envisage a practical agreement with the Vatican before satisfactorily resolving the doctrinal questions.


On the following 13th October, Bishop de Galarreta might well try to explain that “what was done amounts to taking the whole doctrinal and liturgical question and making it a practical question”, the order is no longer respected and we can but fear the consequences that St Pius X warned of: “If the rule seems to be an obstacle to the action, some might say that to dissimulate and to compromise shall help the action succeed. By doing so one forgets the failsafe rules and obscures the principles on the pretext of a benefit that is nothing but an appearance. What shall remain of this construction without foundations, built on sand?”


The aim of this study is to demonstrate, based on Revelation, Tradition and the concordant declarations of Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated, that the above mentioned principle is absolutely catholic and may suffer neither abandon nor exception, being the will of God Himself and not forged by some traditionalist thinker allergic to all ralliement.


I – Revelation


In the Old Testament as in the New it is God’s firm and explicit will that the men He gratifies with His pure and true doctrine refrain absolutely from mixing with those who profess another, because of the risk of prevaricating.


It is the first recommendation the Almighty makes in concluding the covenant with Moses: “Beware thou never join in friendship with the inhabitants of that land, which may be thy ruin: But destroy their altars, break their statues, and cut down their groves” (Ex. 34, 12-13).


In turn, Our Lord often warned his disciples against the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees
(Mt 16, 6 ; Mc 8, 15), against the false prophets disguised as sheep (Mt 7, 15) who lead many into error (Mt 24, 11), even were it possible the elect (Mt 24, 24).


The apostles were so impressed by these warnings from the Divine Master that they forcefully repeated them to their own disciples:


– “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.” (Rm. 16, 17).
– “As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” (Gal. 1, 9).
– “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.” (2 Jn 10).


One could add still more passages from scripture but these suffice amply, being dictated by the Holy Ghost, to be convinced that the duty to keep clear of heretics is a God-given law.


II – Tradition


The early Church Fathers, bearing in mind these doctrinal anathemas, were moved to repeat the exhortation of Saint Paul: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid” (Tit. 3, 10).


– “Avoid the heretics; they are the successors of the devil who seduced the first woman”- (St Ignatius of Antioch)
– “Flee all heretics!” (St Irenaeus).
– “Flee the poison of heretics!”(St. Anthony the Great)
– “Do not sit with heretics” (St Ephrem)


And Saint Vincent of Lerins clarifies:


– “The Apostle commands this intransigence to all generations: must always be anathematized those who have a doctrine contrary to the received doctrine”.


It is why Don Guéranger writes to Bishop d’Astros:


– “One of the means to preserve faith, one of the first marks of unity, is the flight from heretics”.


This « first mark of unity » concerns, naturally, the unity of faith, the first characteristic note of the Catholic Church which can have only “one God, one faith” (Eph. 4,5). This same Church which solemnly tells its future subdeacons to “Remain strong in the true catholic faith, for, according to the Apostle, all that is not of faith is sin (Ro. 14, 23), schism, foreign to the unity of the Church”.


To better understand not only the seniority, but also the uncompromising character of our principle, we must engrave in our minds that during more than a thousand years of schism between the Byzantines and Rome there was never, without exception, concluded one single canonical agreement with the Uniates until they recognized the catholic doctrine over the disputed dogmas (Filioque, primacy of the Pope, etc.).


It is what the Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, recalled on the eve of the Council:


“Once the truth is acknowledged, this truth over which the Church cannot compromise, all the children who return to her will find a Mother prepared to accommodate as magnanimously as is possible in matters of liturgy, traditions, discipline and humanity” (In Itinéraires No 70 p.6)


III – The declarations of our Bishops


– Archbishop Lefebvre: “supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.””
(Fideliter n. 66 nov-dec 1988, pp. 12-13).


– Bishop Williamson: “The greatest challenge to the SSPX in the next few years is to grasp the primacy of doctrine, and to measure everything else, and to pray, accordingly. In our sentimental world, the constant temptation is to go by feelings. Not going by feelings is what marked out Archbishop Lefebvre, and if in this respect we do not follow him, the SSPX will go the way of all flesh – into the arms of the (objective) destroyers of the Church. […] Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine!” (Angelus Press, 21 June 2008).


– Bishop Fellay : “…the clear awareness of the much more profound key issue which we have just described, forbids us to place the two issues on an equal footing. It is so clear for us that the issue of the Faith and of the spirit of faith has priority over all that we cannot consider a practical solution before the first issue is safely resolved. (…) For us, each day brings additional proof that we must clarify to a maximum the underlying issues before taking one more step toward a canonical situation, which is not in itself displeasing to us. But this is a matter of following the order of the nature of things, and to start from the wrong end would unavoidably place us in an unbearable situation. We have daily proofs of this. What is at stake is nothing more nor less than our future existence.”
(Superior General’s Letter to Friends and Benefactors no.73, 23 October 2008)


– Bishop de Galarreta : “They evidently want to trouble us, to alarm us by pressuring us toward a purely practical agreement, which has always been the proposition of the cardinal [Hoyos]. Evidently you already know our thoughts. This way is a dead way; for us it is the road to death. Therefore there is no question of us following it. We cannot commit ourselves to betraying the public profession of Faith. Out of the question! It’s impossible.”


(Homily 27 June 2008, Ecône)
“This is not the moment to change the decision of the 2006 Chapter: no practical agreement without a solution to the doctrinal question.” (Report read at the Chapter in Albano 7 October 2011)


– Bishop Tissier de Mallerais : “We refuse a purely practical agreement because the doctrinal question is fundamental. Faith comes before legality. We cannot accept a legalization without the problem of the faith being solved. (…) “It is a new religion that is not the Catholic religion. We do not want any compromise with this religion, any risk of corruption, not even any appearance of conciliation, and it is this appearance that our so-called “regularization” would give us.”
(Interview in Rivarol, 1st June 2012).




The principle “No canonical agreement before a doctrinal agreement” is a principle:


1) Founded on the Word of God, which formally forbids us to associate with those who profess a different doctrine to that which has been handed down by the Church, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1Tim. 3, 15), in particular for over a thousand years in its discussions with the Eastern schismatics.


2) Absolute and allowing for no circumventing, reduction or exception, because it pertains of an “order of nature” as bishop Fellay rightly wrote in the past, and not a conventional process.


In consequence, it being true that one cannot expect to recover after having abandoned certain principals, especially those which concern faith, we must today as much as ever not only hold the principal « NO CANONICAL AGREEMENT BEFORE A DOCTRINAL AGREEMENT », but we must be watchful that it is not forgotten, altered or by-passed, and we must proclaim it come hell or high water for all good-willed souls to hear.


May the Most Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary come to our aid in the true combat of faith and keep us ever in their love!

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |