You can directly listen to the audio by left clicking on the “Play” button.  If you prefer to download the audio file to your computer, right click the “Play” button and then left click the “Save audio as” option.

 

 | Posted by | Categories: Sermons |

FATHER ALTAMIRA’S RESPONSE TO HIS SECOND CANONICAL ADMONISHMENT

Response to the Canonical Admonishment

Your Excellency Bishop Fellay (cc Father Bouchacourt, cc Father Pablo Billoni),

 

I have recently received your Second (and last) Canonical Admonishment before my coming expulsion (invalid) from the Society of Saint Pius X.

 

As a French priest wrote to you a short while ago, all this is a masquerade, a parody.

 

As for the FORM of these legal aspects, this type of procedure used to expel priests through purely administrative mechanisms, not even judicial ones (as one can observe in the Society), ARE INEVITABLY NULL since they violate in their very process certain elementary norms of “due process”, for instance:

 

Bishop Fellay is at the same time “judge and party”, there is no principle of impartiality even if he hides behind a District Superior; nor is there a principle of double instance, the possibility of appealing to a higher court; and the recourse to Rome of course doesn’t exist (the See is occupied), etc. On this last point, and only to keep playing the game you have started (“to go to Conciliar Rome”), I request the Recourse to Rome, and I would like to know what you will answer me.

 

However, above legal forms (procedural law), the most important thing here is the question about the ESSENCE: The heart of the problem is that which we, priests of the Society of St Pius X, are suffering from. And above all it is this particular point which nullifies the expulsion with which you want to proceed.

 

Because, either all of this is fiction, or there is a real problem (and it is serious). And if there is a problem, “someone” has created it. The problem is not a fiction, and you are the one who created it.

 

Under normal circumstances, one could lodge a grievance with Rome, and the Holy See could even remove the Superior-General from his functions. But we know that this isn’t a possibility, and that the Modernist, Conciliar Rome is very likely quite happy with what you are doing.

 

What would our founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, have said, if he had heard and seen what you say and do? Let us briefly examine what may be the four most grievous points that we suffer in this (“apocalyptic” said Archbishop Lefebvre) crisis:

 

(1)  Council Vatican II

 

Archbishop Lefebvre said that this was the worst disaster which had befallen us, that “its value was null” (since it was qualified as ‘pastoral’, etc), and so many other things that we know.

 

What did Bishop Fellay say about the Council? That we agree with it 95% (!!); “we accept it with some reservations” (we accept it!); many errors are in reality errors of interpretation (“of the understanding”) of the Council (so similar to the argument of many conservative groups from the middle ground: “the problem is not so much the Council but the interpretation which is made of it”); to justify the said Council, he (Bishop Fellay) uses the argument of Benedict XVI, the hermeneutic of continuity – “there is no break with the Catholic doctrine of all time” – (refer the Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay dated April 2012 presented to Rome in our name); what you answered the three Bishops in your famous letter of 2012: one must not make a super-heresy out of Vatican II (of course, since you agree with it 95%) and “in the Church there are more important things” than the problem of the Council; your expression according to which certain points are “not easy to reconcile” with the Catholic doctrine (only “not easy”?, they are “impossible” to reconcile!).

 

What does the Second Assistant of the Society, Father Pfluger, say? That if we do not accept Vatican II as part of the Magisterium, if we do not accept “the magisterial value of the Council”, “then WE ARE NOT CATHOLICS”. We are not Catholics! It is the absolute opposite: To be Catholic, one must not accept the magisterial value of the Council!

 

Well then, what I just said, it is either fiction, or it is Truth. And if is Truth, something must be said, something must be done. The curious thing is that, amongst ourselves, those who are invested with the most authority are not talking publicly.

 

 

(2) Religious freedom and the Council

 

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Catholic theology of all the different eras, together with the Popes, have taught us that it is the point in which is seen the most clearly the false and erroneous teachings of Vatican II. “Tons” have been written about it.

 

What does Bishop Fellay say about it? That the conception which Vatican II has of religious freedom “is very limited” (such a “special” way to express oneself on something like this, such a “suave” way). And it is on religious freedom that you excused the Council, saying that they are in reality things from the “common understanding of the Council”, “of the common interpretation” which is made of the Council.

 

Again, either it is fiction, or it is Truth, and if it is Truth, something needs to be done! And our brothers with the most authority stay silent, they do not say anything publicly.

 

(3) The modern mass

 

Archbishop Lefebvre, very strongly, said that it was “a bastard mass”. We are all aware of the number of works which have been written to explain the risks of INVALIDITY of the modern mass. Already Cardinal Ottaviani, in his 1969  work, was talking about INVALIDITY “including if you have the intention to do what the Church does” (one of Bishop Fellay’s arguments to defend “the validity” of the new mass), and this without taking into consideration the numerous members of our own Society who have also written about it.

 

The modern mass is an ILLEGITIMATE mass (by its definition, by its illegitimate rite, by its errors, by its protestant tendencies, by its promulgation itself).

 

On this point, the impertinence of Bishop Fellay, yourself, was very explicit: the modern mass (and all the modern sacraments) are valid if they are celebrated “with the intention of doing what the Church does” (ut supra)[i], and have been “LEGITIMATELY PROMULGATED” (your declaration of April 2012 ut supra). And the incredible lack of respect towards Archbishop Lefebvre when you said to Cardinal Cañizares that if he [Archbishop Lefebvre] had seen modern mass celebrated properly, “he wouldn’t have taken the step he took”. Is that saying that this whole fight of Archbishop Lefebvre against the modern mass was bad, was exaggerated? Is that saying that the only problem is one of excesses committed by some when they celebrate it? Is that saying that we can attend modern masses when whoever celebrates it is a conservative, such as in the monastery where you saw it celebrated by a priest – for instance – of the Opus Dei? All this is incredible! And it is quite scandalous. And no one, no one of those who govern us is saying anything! No one says anything publicly. I am thinking, with some hope still, of one of our Bishops.

 

Furthermore, you, Bishop Fellay, now admit the validity of all modern sacraments. Incredible! Perhaps there isn’t any doubt on the validity of the “MODERN” PRIESTLY ORDINATION? That would explain why we haven’t done that many “re-ordinations” – in the rite of all time – of priests who came from the Conciliar Church? Perhaps there isn’t any doubt on the validity of the modern confirmation? That would explain why we have not given many conditional Confirmations recently to those who received it in the Conciliar Religion? What is all this, Bishop Fellay! Something has to be done!

 

(4) And Ecumenism

 

How did Archbishop Lefebvre behave and react at the congregation of all religions on earth during the meeting of Assisi I, meeting organised by John Paul II? How did you behave and react at the congregation of all religions, meeting organised by Benedict XVI at Assisi II? What did Archbishop Lefebvre say in his time and what did you say?

 

Ecumenism will maybe end up in the creation of “The World Religion” for the world government of the Antichrist: How can you stay like this?

 

And that expression coined by this current, used by the conciliar Popes, by John Paul II, by Benedict XVI, etc, all in pursuit of the ecumenical and masonic ideal, to talk about one of the numerous false religions and its adepts: “The Jews are our elder brothers”. What did Archbishop Lefebvre say about this expression? What are you saying, you, our Superior-General, of that same phrase? Well, you know it: You have repeated this expression word for word, without any problem.

 

And we answer you: The saints are our elder brothers! And every Catholic must try – if they can – to convert the Jews (and anyone else belonging to a false religion) to Catholicism, to the only true religion.

 

This happens, and no one is saying anything PUBLICLY!

 

For the last time: either everything above if a work of fiction, or it is the Truth. And if it is the Truth, something must be done!

 

TO CONCLUDE, and to follow the questions of ESSENCE: it is for resisting these things, for these true motives, that you, Bishop Fellay, are seeking my (invalid) expulsion from the Society.

 

For this reason, “in essence”, your measures will not have any value, it will be null. We must only hope that one day God will decide to clarify these matters.

 

Every time I have raised these issues, I have tried to talk seriously, but without lacking respect towards you. I believe, and I hope, that I that have always done so. Reread my sermon of December 22nd (which was the beginning “of the end of my case”), reread my letter to Father P. Bouchacourt.

 

Why couldn’t we talk publicly about these problems? We both know, as trained priests, that if that is indeed the rule, numerous circumstances demand that it be done publicly. I think what we are experiencing now in the Society, in such proportions, demands imperiously that we speak publicly. Archbishop Lefebvre did it, even though not with a Superior, but with the Pope himself, and in front of the entire world.

 

And still, to continue playing your game, and making myself the echo of what you published to justify the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre, “ad hominem”, I will tell you, in my defence, the following arguments: the “subjective” appreciation of the topic demands the diminution or the mitigation of the measure to be applied (to compare: the New Code of Canonical Law, which you support as well).

 

Instead of remaining silent, it is the obligation of every Catholic priest, of ourselves as priests of the FSSPX, to resist you, with respect, but it has to be done!

 

Archbishop Lefebvre endured all these situations with the whole Church and towards the Conciliar Popes; you have created a similar situation: We, priests, endure all of this with our Society and “towards Bishop Fellay”.

 

My letter is becoming drawn out.

 

I have the feeling that you are going to destroy our Society, the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. I hope I mistaken, I don’t think I am. And as I said to you before, I think it will happen even WITHOUT THE NEED TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCILIAR RELIGION. If it so happens: What a sad role – to say the least – will you have played in the History of Eternity! You will be remembered as the one who destroyed the Society of Saint Pius X.

 

Hopefully these words will be useful to you. Hopefully they will be useful to these “eminent” members who can see the problem with great clarity, but haven’t spoken publicly. God will tell.

 

As for me, I only wish and ask God and the Blessed Virgin Mary to help me be a faithful priest. I hope that They will grant me this grace.

 

Respectfully, in Mary Most Holy.

 

Father Fernando Altamira – Monday March 3rd 2014.

 

 

Thank you to Suzanne Borgos for the translation.

 

 


[i] Ut supra : “as above”

 

 | Posted by | Categories: Uncategorized |

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 |

Celebrant:

Fr. David Hewko

 

Date and Time:

Saturday March 8th at 12:30 pm (confessions at 12 pm)

 

Location:

Royal Crown #3 Room, Best Western Plus Toronto Airport Hotel

5825 Dixie Road

Mississauga, Ontario L4W 4V7

 

Notes:

No outside food is allowed in the hotel.

 

There will also be Mass in the morning of Sunday March 16th.

 

Contact:

Christine Saul

Secretary, Our Lady of Good Success Mission

(519) 927-9999

 | Posted by | Categories: Mass Schedule |

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.
 

http://aveclimmaculee.blogspot.fr/2014/02/adresse-publique-des-familles.html
 
 
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 vimeo.com).
 
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 http://www.sacrificium.org/article/sspx-bloopers-22-february-2014
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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb_D4clTKJA
 

 | 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.

 

Endnotes

 

  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.
  6. http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/02/sspx-and-resistance-comparison-of.html
  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: |