Ecclesia Militans Radio – Episode 2 – The Catholic Resistance Rosary Crusade

Play Audio:


Download Audio:

The Catholic Resistance Rosary Crusade




Resistance Rosary Crusade Website:

“No Canonical Agreement Prior to a Doctrinal Resolution” Is a Catholic Principle

NOTE:  This article was originally published on February 24, 2014.  It contained errors that have been corrected in the revised version below.  Nonetheless, the errors in the original did not detract from the thesis.


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, “no canonical agreement in union with the errors of the present teaching Magisterium prior to the doctrinal resolution of the unity in the 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 (Catholic sense).


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”.  Hence, unity in the Faith is of the “greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity”.  In addition to the unity in the Faith, Pope Leo XIII states that an external principle, the Magisterium of the Church headed by the Pope, is “absolutely necessary” to insure unity in the Faith.  We may then legitimately ask, “Which principle, unity in the Faith or the Magisterium of the Church, is a more important for our salvation?”


To answer the above question, let us first look at it from the perspective of ends.  In the quote above, Pope Leo XIII implies that the Magisterium of the Church exists for the sake of insuring unity in the Faith.  The First Vatican Council implies this same doctrine when it taught that the successors of St. Peter are duty bound to teach and preserve the Catholic Faith:


“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.”9


A thing that exists for the sake of another thing makes that thing for which it exists the superior of the two.


Secondly, let us look at it from the perspective of necessity.  St. Paul teaches, “Without faith it is impossible to please God”.10  This is because the theological virtue of faith enables us to firmly believe in Jesus Christ and all that He taught (i.e., the Deposit of Faith), and Our Lord cannot forgo our belief in Him as He is “the way, and the truth, and the life”.11  The theological virtue of faith and those doctrines of the Deposit of Faith that all must explicitly believe, then, are intrinsically necessary for our salvation.  On the other hand, the Magisterium of the Church is the means Christ “actually adopted” to preserve the unity in the Faith.  In other words, 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.  The Magisterium of the Church, then, is necessary for our salvation (i.e., by insuring the unity of the Faith), not by an intrinsic necessity but by Divine decree.


From the above arguments of ends and necessity, we conclude that the principle of the unity in the Faith is more important for our salvation than is the Magisterium of the Church.


Let us continue.


As is the unity in the Faith, the unity of government is a bond of the unity of the Church.  Now if the principle of the unity in the Faith is more important for our salvation than is the Magisterium of the Church, then the government of the Church by the same Magisterium cannot be a more important bond of the unity of the Church than is the unity in the Faith.  To understand this clearly, we must keep in mind that teaching authority (magisterium) takes precedence over jurisdiction (government).  We must also keep in mind that the unity of the Church is itself directed towards our salvation.  Once understood, we will see that if a pope was to teach a doctrine different than that of Christ, he would fail in his duty as head of the Magisterium of the Church in insuring unity in the Faith (and consequently the unity of the Church) and ultimately endangering our salvation.  Therefore, any attempt to impose this heretical teaching, as head of the government of the Church, by censures or penalties would be an abuse of the authority, both in teaching and government, 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.”12


Therefore, a thing or law which is used and directed away from its object cannot be said to faithfully address it.  St. Thomas Aquinas also states, “A law that is not just is not a law at all.”  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:


The Magisterium exists to preserve the unity in the Faith.
Faith is intrinsically necessary for salvation.
The Magisterium of the Church is necessary for salvation, not by intrinsic necessity but by Divine decree.
Faith is more important for salvation than is the Magisterium of the Church.
Faith is a more important bond of the unity of the Church than is the government of the Church.
The unity of the Church is directed towards salvation.
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:


The agreement would not represent a true and authentic Catholic unity based on the Faith. 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, as the external principle of the unity in the Faith, is directed towards preserving the Faith.  Any position of the Pope showing indifference or opposition towards the Faith 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, which requires unity in the Faith.  It simply would not be true that the matter concerns the unity of the Church.


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.


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 errors of 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.



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

Fatima Or the means chosen by God to redress the present situation


Or the means chosen by God to redress the present situation


by a Dominican father


This is a sermon given in the Dominican monastery la Haye-aux-Bonshommes in Avrillé (France).

The Fatima Message


Starting on May 13, the Most Holy Virgin appeared to three young shepherds on the 13th of every month in the presence of a growing number of pilgrims and the inquisitive. The children alone saw Our Lady.

It is not sufficient to say that the message was a call for prayer and penance, as the Vatican claims.Such a lack of precision allows the particular demands given by Our Lady for our times to be placed under the bushel. We must therefore state the exact nature and the aim of the prayer request. Therefore, it is more correct to say that the instructions given by Our Lady between May 13 and October 13 may be summed up in these words: the daily Rosary and sacrifices for the conversion of sinners. That is the Fatima message in general.


To this general message were later added two particular requests that were in keeping with the promise made as early as July 13:


– in 1925, the request was made for the Five First Saturdays devotion in reparation for sins ;


– and in 1929, the request was made for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope in union with all the bishops in the world.


It would be an error to limit the Fatima message to these two particular requests and to forget the general request: the daily Rosary and sacrifices for the conversion of sinners.

The Miracle of the Sun: the Facts


Let us go back to the 13th day of October 1917, the day that we are commemorating today.


As early as July 13, the Virgin Mary announced a huge miracle that would take place on October 13 so that the entire world may believe in the reality of the apparitions and in the serious nature of Heaven’s warning.


The story is well known: a crowd of nearly 100,000 people gathered in the area; they were mostly Catholics, but also non-believers, militant atheists, and even the freemasonic government minister for national education. A torrential rain pouring from midnight on soaked everyone to the bones and rendered the Cova da Iria1 into a muddy field: in order to give blessings, God wills that we first do penance. At midday, Lucy asked the people to fold their umbrellas. The entire crowd complied and magnificently displayed their faith and obedience. A few moments later, the sun broke through the clouds and Our Lady appeared above a small holm-oak. She asked for the conversion of sinners and, as in every apparition, she insisted on the daily recitation of the Rosary.


Then, suddenly, Lucy cried out: « Look at the sun! » In front of the stupefied crowd of people, the sun gyrated in on itself as if it were a fire wheel, turning various colors of the rainbow. This lasted nearly eight minutes but seemed like hours. This cannot be attributed to a collective hallucination, becausethe phenomenon was seen within a forty-kilometer radius by various individuals.


While the sun was spinning around, the three young shepherds, Lucy, Jacinta and Francisco alone saw a vision that symbolized the three sets of the mysteries of the Rosary:


– representing the Joyful Mysteries: St. Joseph appeared with the Child Jesus and Our Lady: St. Joseph and the Child Jesus were blessing the world;


– representing the Sorrowful Mysteries: Our Lord appeared with Our Lady of Sorrows;


– representing the Glorious Mysteries: the Virgin Mary in Heaven was seen holding the scapular of Mount Carmel.


The sun then turned blood red in color and seemed to fall from the sky and hurl itself towards the earth. Everyone believed that the end of the world had come. Then everything stopped – the sun returned to its normal place in the sky.


The people got up and noted another phenomenon: their soaked clothes were completely dry.


The non-believers had to acknowledge the reality of the facts. The following day, newspapers, including those most hostile towards the Church, all reported on the event.


What lessons may we draw today from this miracle?


The Miracle of the Sun: Lessons to be Drawn

The largest miracle in the entire history of the Church


Firstly let us observe the spectacular nature of this miracle. We must turn to the Old Testament to find similar prodigies that were performed in front of an immense crowd of people: such as the manifestation of God to Moses and to the Hebrew people on Mount Sinai (Ex 19); or when Joshua stopped the sun and the moon from advancing so that nightfall would not prevent the Jews from exterminating the enemies of Yahweh (Jos 10). The miracle of October 13, 1917 is assuredly the largest miracle in the entire history of the Church. Let us ask why.


The history of the Church is the history of the struggle between two cities: the city of God and the city of Satan:


These two Cities are made by two loves: the heavenly City by love of God even to the contempt of self; the earthly City by love of oneself even to the contempt of God (St. Augustin, The City of God).


This magnificent synthesis of St. Augustine is nothing other than what is written in the Book of Genesis:


I will put enmities between thee [the snake] and the Woman [the Virgin Mary], and between thy seed and her seed [Our Lord; the Church]: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel [the persecutions of the Church] (Gen 3, 15).


We are now living in the times when « the devil is fighting the decisive battle, meaning the final battle », says Our Lady2. This is the day when the general assault of all anti-Christian forces is launched against the Church.


It is urgent that we realize the terrible reality that we are in. We do not wish to frighten people, but this is an urgent call to the reality of our situation, comments Sr. Lucy 3.


And it is in order to draw our attention to this final phase of the history of the Church that Heaven produced the largest miracle of the past 2,000 years.

Paradoxically, the current Church authorities are totally silent on this event.


And so, in the year 2000, when Cardinal Ratzinger released to the public a questionable version of the third secret of Fatima, he made no allusion whatsoever to this miracle.


Why this silence?


The current Church authorities have not yet fulfilled the Virgin Mary’s request, and so it is understandable that they are embarassed by this miracle, which clearly proves the heavenly origin of this request. At the same time – could it be their guilty conscience? – these authorities feel obliged to talk from time to time about Fatima and to perform the consecrations of the world or of mankind. Pope Francis made one such consecration on October 13, 20134. However, by not consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as Our Lady requested, the popes are unable to provide the world with the promised remedy, and the situation continues to get worse.

The Fatima apparitions are the key to understanding the entire history of our era


We will now move to the second important consideration: the Fatima apparitions are the key to understanding all the events of the 20th century and all that we are living through today, whether in the religious or political sphere. To be truly convinced of this, one only needs to read the authoritative work by French Br. Michel of the Holy Trinity, The Whole Truth about Fatima5.


The troubles, the upheavals and the unprecedented decadence of our times are the direct consequences of the fact that churchmen have not yet wished to fulfill the request of Our Lady of Fatima:


I will come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart and for the Five First Saturdays in reparation for the sins, said Our Lady on July 13, 1917. If my requests are granted, Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If my requests are not granted, Russia will spread her errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church.


The October 1917 Revolution that took place immediately after the request of Our Lady of Fatima was not a simple coup d’état bringing about a regime change. The aim of the Revolution was especially « to spread throughout the world the institutions and the mores of atheism6 », and the immorality that was to follow in its wake7.


This Revolution occurred precisely during the huge conflagration of 1914 – 1918, which was the first Great War aiming to prepare for a one-world government. It is this that constitutes the errors of Russia:the creation of an atheistic society without Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the supreme assault against the Social Kingship of Our Lord. And we must admit that these errors have now spread throughout the entire world. No nation has been spared.


The only effective obstacle to this plan was the Church. In order to protect the Church and the world from this plot, the Virgin Mary requested Pope Pius XI in 1921, by the intermediary of Sr. Lucy, to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart. The Pope did not believe the matter was worth pursuing. Ten years later Our Lord complained to Sr. Lucy:


Tell My ministers: because they are following the example of the king of France in delaying the fulfillment of My request, they will share in his tragedy8.


It was indeed during those years that an organisation was put in place by Moscow in order to infiltrate seminaries and novitiates with agents who had false vocations. These agents later reached influencial positions and gradually worked to effect a new orientation in the Church. This has been proven by a good number of documents. (We have provided references in an article about Fatima9 in our review le Sel de la Terre.) The Pope having ignored the protection that Heaven was offering, the Church became the plaything of her enemies.


At the time of the Second Vatican Council, Moscow doubled the budget they allocated to the Paxorganization, which was one of the principal agents of Communist infiltration into the Church10. Among other things, this group contributed to the attacks directed at the Curia during the Council11.


We should therefore not be surprised that the two major documents passed by the Council, and not without opposition, were:


the document on Religious Liberty12, which sanctions the secularization of States, that is to say their becoming atheistic States, preventing the Social Reign of Our Lord and forbidding the constitution of officially Catholic nations;


– and the document Nostra Aetate13 which, along with the decree on Ecumenism14, leads to what we see today: churchmen who abandon missionary activities in order to work towards uniting all religions for the service of the atheistic and anti-Christian world government. Last October 1st, in an interview with the chief editor of the newpaper Repubblica in Italy, an interview which made huge waves, Pope Francis declared: « Proselytism [that is, missionary activity] is a pompous absurdity ». But this Ecumenism, which refuses the conversion of non-Catholics, leads to Religious Indifferentism, and Religious Indifferentism leads to Apostasy and to Atheism. That is what we see today in the entire world.


Yes, the errors of Russia have penetrated inside the Church.

The means chosen by God to redress the current situation


So, what must we do? And can we do anything, we who are so few?


We need to understand that God alone can now redress the situation. There is no longer any solution on the purely human level. But that does not mean that there is nothing for us to do: God always wants the co-operation of His creatures, but the co-operation must be in accordance with His plan.

The Two Battles


Some years ago an eminent traditional Catholic thinker summed up the situation very well when he said that there are two battles that must be fought at the same time:


1) We must fight in order to preserve our last holdings. It is obvious that we must above all maintain our chapels, our monasteries, our schools, our publications, our associations15, and, generally speaking, we must hold on to our hope of salvation and to the orthodoxy of our Doctrine. This is the lower battle. It is a defensive battle, a battle where we hold our own against the enemy.


2) But on a level higher than these countless battles of self-preservation, a battle of the greatest importance has begun and whose objective is the transfer of power16. « I will reign in spite of My enemies », said the Sacred Heart to St. Margaret-Mary in 168917; a promise that was renewed in the 19th and 20th centuries to a large number of mystics, in particular to Madame Royer in France. […] We may rest assured that today Our Lord is working mysteriously, as He always does, towards the destruction of the Beast and towards the restoration of His own Reign. This mysterious battle which is led by Christ the King constitutes the higher battle, and that is the principal objective18.

The Lower Battle


Concerning the lower battle, the battle fought by men, Fr. Calmel O.P. had these enlightening words to say:


May each priest, each layman, each little group of priests and laymen, who have authority and influence over a small remnant of the Church and of Christendom go to the utmost of their possibilities and power. […] May the leaders of the small groups and their members know each other and communicate with each other. May each of these small groups thus protected, defended, led and guided in their prayer and chants by a true authority, become as much as possible a bastion of holiness: this is what will garantee the continuity of the true Church and what will efficaciously prepare for a revival, when the day chosen by God comes19.


Let us note what Fr. Calmel says: our bastions must be bastions of holiness.


What is worrisome at the moment is not so much the advancement of the forces of evil, but rather the softening of the good. Actually, there’s probably a link between the two tendencies. Those who knew the heroic beginnings of Tradition with Archbishop Lefebvre note that today the traditionalists have become quite lukewarm in comparison to those heroic days: the slovenly manner of dressing, sinful and imprudent use of the Internet, weakening of the convictions among the young, the faithful who no longer read in order to maintain their Faith and to oppose errors, fewer people going on spiritual retreats, a proportional decrease in vocations, etc.


If our principal focus in this lower battle is not on our sanctification, we will not preserve our bastions. We will be swept away in the general apostasy. Let us be watchful, let us wake up!

The Higher Battle


Above this battle of self-preservation lies the higher battle whose goal it is to completely defeat the forces of evil. This is where God’s battle lies. And where do we stand in this battle?


There is but one simple action that each one must take. Our Lady confided that action to Sr. Lucy of Fatima:


Many times, while I was spending precious hours in her company, Our Lady insisted that we fulfill our daily duties according to our state in life and that we offer this effort for the reparation of our sins and for the conversion of sinners. This is the fundamental condition which will enable us to push back the forces of evil that threaten to submerge the world today and which will bring about the conversion of Russia and a period of peace to the world. But she also explained the importance of the Rosarybecause it is the one principal means given to us by Our Lady for the sanctification of our daily duties20.


This is how we can truly and efficaciously participate in the final battle which will definitively crush the enemies of the Church. This is within everyone’s reach and that is very encouraging!



Let us conclude with the words of Abp. Lefebvre which he gave in a sermon in his last Pontifical Mass on November 1, 1990 in Écône on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the SSPX. This is his testament:



My dear Friends, you can easily see the importance of your role. […] You are a small remnant, but you carry the torch boldly. […] Ah! What a beautiful task, what a noble crusade lies ahead of you! The good God has placed you in a period of the history of mankind that is exciting for young people such as yourselves! It was just like this at the time of the Machabees when they left the corrupt Jewish society, and they too were very few. Judas Machabee with only eight hundred soldiers faced an army of twenty thousand – and he defeated them. And so, be confident, my dear Friends, God is with you. He will not abandon you, just as He has not abandoned us over the course of the last twenty years. Nor will He abandon you in the future because it is Himself that God wants. God does not want to disappear; He is God, He wants to remain God, not only in Heaven, but also here on earth. That is why He wants soldiers in His army.


1) It is the Portuguese word for the plot of land where the Fatima apparitions took place.

2) Interview of Sr. Lucy with Fr. Fuentès on Dec. 26, 1957, reproduced in the Messagero del Cuore di Maria, no. 8-9, Aug-Sept 1961.

3) Interview of Sr. Lucy with Fr. Fuentès, (ibid.).

4) With Pope Francis, we have descended even lower. On October 13, 2013, the Immaculate Heart of Mary was not even named in the consecration formula: the Pope consecrated « mankind » […] to « the Virgin of Fatima » (ORLF 42, Thursday, Oct. 17, 2013, p. 8-9).

5) France, Saint-Parres-lès-Vaudes, CRC, published in English by : Immaculate Heart Publications, Box 1028, Buffalo, New York, USA 14205, and : 452 Kraft Road, Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada L2A 4M7 ; volume 1 : science and the facts (1989), volume 2 : the secret and the Church (1989), volume 3 : the third secret (1990). One cannot necessarily endorse all the pronouncements given in the works of the French Contre Réforme Catholique, but on the whole it is a most worthy collection of documents for historians.

6) Fr. Calmel O.P., Le Cœur immaculé de Marie et la paix du monde », Itinéraires 38, Dec. 1959, p. 24.

7) We must re-read the encyclical Divini Redemptoris of Pope Pius XI on the atheistic Communism, March 19, 1937.

8) The words of Our Lord can be found in a letter of Sr. Lucy cited by Fr. Alonso and reproduced by Br. Michel of the Holy Trinity in The Whole Truth about Fatima, t. 2, p. 546.

9) Fatima : notre espérance, Le Sel de la terre 53, summer 2005, p. 63. The article written by Dominicus, « Jean-Paul II a-t-il consacré la Russie ? » was published as a booklet by Editions du Selunder the title La Russie se convertira. The references to the Communist infiltration of the Church starting in the reign of Pope Pius XI may be found on page 13.

10) See the publication Itinéraires 79, p. 55-57; see also L’affaire Pax en France, a supplement toItinéraires 86.

11) Itinéraires 88, p. 14-18.

12) Dignitatis Humanae, Dec. 7, 1965.

13) Declaration on the relations of the Church with non-Christian religions, Oct. 28, 1965.

14) Unitatis Redintegratio, Nov. 21, 1964.

15) Chapels, schools, etc., were founded by the heroic resistance of Abp Lefebvre towards the apostasy of the conciliar church. All this is endangered today by the policy of Bishop Fellay seeking an agreement with modernist Rome.

16) Here it is a question of the occult powers which oppress us today. God will replace them with the Reign of Christ the King of all nations.

17) This promise given by Our Lord is no doubt in keeping with the one given by Our Lady at Fatima on July 13, 1917: « In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph ».

18) Jean Vaquie, La Bataille préliminaire, Paris, Action Familiale et Scolaire (31 rue Rennequin, 75017), p. 1-2. The entire booklet should be read. It is supplemented by Réflexions sur les ennemis et la manœuvre, by the same author, available from DPF (Diffusion de la Pensée Française).

19) P. R-Th Calmel O.P., Brève apologie pour l’Église de toujours, Maule, Difralivre, 1987, p. 50.

20) Remarks made by Sr. Lucy of Fatima and noted by Mr. John Haffert, one of the main founders of the Blue Army, collected in 1946 and published in his work Fatima, a Worldwide Apostolat, edited in France by Tequi in 1984, p. 17.




Letter to Our Fellow Priests

The is an English translation provided by the Recusant of a letter to priests still in the nSSPX prepared by a French Resistance priest.



Letter to Our Fellow Priests

No.5 – Spring, 2015


In April 2013, Bishop Fellay claimed that the Society had not changed except for some “superficial changes,” “some elderly priests,” “more houses in a greater number of countries,” in sum “a normal development … We used to have four bishops and now we have three. That’s also a change. But in and of itself, it’s nothing fundamental, nothing essential.” [1]


At the end of January 2014 Fr de Caqueray hoped: “that the split,” between Bishop Fellay and the signatories of the ‘Address to the Faithful’ “might be resolved,” and before leaving the district, he confided:

“I hope with all my heart that, given that there is no current plan for the Society to try anything with the sort of Pope I’ve just been talking about; well, I hope that some of these priests and these faithful will consider that, after some moments of difficulty, the Society is remaining faithful to the line which is its own, and recognising as much, that we from our side will be understanding enough to accept back amongst us again, without saying anything, the priests who have left. On their side, of course, I know them, they’re brothers-in-arms, valiant priests who have not been found wanting in their apostolate during all these year, and thus it’s sad to have seen them leave, and I hope that, if the whole thing was nothing more than a mistake between the Society and them, that this mistake will be really sorted out, that’s what I hope with all my heart.” [2]


Faced with such testimony, one might be tempted to conclude that what the three bishops noted in 2012, in their letter to the General Council, recognising “in the Society symptoms of a lessening in its confession of the Faith” was false and alarmist.


Everything’s going really well?


And yet, on 23rd September, following the meeting between Cardinal Muller and Bishop Fellay, the Vatican published a communique saying:

“It was decided to proceed gradually and over a reasonable period of time in order to overcome difficulties and with a view to the envisioned full reconciliation.”

Thus, the discussions are going ahead in “a broader and less formal way than three years previously” [3] even though in Bishop Fellay’s own words, “the discussions have shown a profound disagreement on almost all the points discussed.”[4]..? In his 5th conference at Flavigny [December 2013], Fr. Pfluger declared explicitly that, given the doctrinal mismatch with Rome: “We must now intensify the contact in membris.” (E.g. faithful, parishes, conservative clergy…)


In 2007, Fr. de la Motte called a meeting of the priests under him in the priory (one of whom was Fr. Salenave) to let them know some news which he thought worth celebrating, though confidential… Menzingen had given its permission for the priory of Gavrus [in Normandy] to become a test-case priory, entering into a close relationship with the local diocese and bishop. When the prior was transferred the experiment came to an end, but today the number of such visits is growing at Menzingen’s request: Angers, Montpelier and Chateauroux are all due to receive a visit from their local bishop.


In 2015, two dangerous Apostles of Religious Liberty, Cardinal Brandmuller Bishop Schneider, visited the seminaries of Zaitskofen, Flavigny and Winona and taught there. The former compares: “The Society of St. Pius X and the Old Catholics who rejected Vatican I’s teaching on Papal Infaliibility [and] who have in common their rejection of legitimate developments of the life and doctrine of the Church.” [5] For the latter, dubbed “Benedict XVI’s best pupil” by the magazine l’Homme Nouveau, “Ecumenism is necessary in order to be in contact with our separated brethren, to love them. In the midst of the challenge of the new paganism, we can and have to collaborate with serious non-Catholics to defend the revealed Divine truth and the natural law, created by God.”[6]

“I can hear them say: ‘You exaggerate! There are more and more good bishops who pray, who have the faith and are edifying!’ – Can they be saints when they admit false Religious Liberty and therefore the secular state? When they accept false ecumenism and therefore the admission that there are many paths leading to salvation? When they accept the liturgical reform and therefore the practical denial of the Sacrifice of the Mass? … Are they not rather officially cooperating with the revolution within the Church and its destruction? … This new religion is not the Catholic religion.” [7]


Integration means our disintegration…


The words of Fr. de Journa – “Integration will mean our disintegration … In the Church it is the truth which makes you free, not diplomacy.” [8] – were evidence for the majority of members of the Society in 2001. Today, thanks to the subversive action of its head, things have been reversed. No one is unaware that subversion more often comes from an unbelieving elite than from a grass-roots in revolt.


How many of our priestly confreres have read the book by Fr. Lelong entitled: “For the Necessary Reconciliation”? There one learns that from 1992 (Fr. Aulagnier) and above all since 1997 (Fr. Lorans), the head of the SSPX is working towards a sell-out. The fight for the Faith quickly gave place to the desire for recognition. We do still have some words spoken to the right, but the head is acting more often to the left. And this way of acting is not without consequences:

“It is therefore natural, obvious and historically certain that, once you start negotiating with Rome and the bishops and you ask for certain favours, you yourself end up being obliged to soften or completely drop your opposition to the liturgical reform, toDignitatis Humanae and to the Council, lest you find yourself in an untenable psychological position. That is the only true cause of your doctrinal evolution: the moral weight of your counterparts and your own desire to be left with something tangible to show for some difficult negotiations where you were largely in the minority. Such a situation forces you into making at least verbal concessions. […] Having arrived at this stage of your evolution, you think it both possible and necessary to temper certain oppositions in order to obtain results […] Negotiations and agreements with Rome and the diocesan bishops necessarily end, sooner or later, in the abandonment of the principles which Tradition has always held to…” [9]


Few of us have also found time to read the interview of the First Assistant in a magazine of the SSPX. The text, translated into French by, was published on La Porte Latine, but only stayed up there for 24 hours. There we read:

“In Tokyo I had to say mass with my shoes off, in Fiji I was received with a Traditional drink which is foul and which, what’s worse, destroys the liver. Are we not tempted to label “modernist”, “liberal”, “Masonic” anything that does not conform to the routine of the 19th and 20th centuries? A traditional thus erroneously conceived is not attractive, and cannot convince anyone, any more than we can build-up the Church according to the image we have of it in the 1950s or according to the arguments which came to the fore in the 1970s. […] No conspiracy theories, no apocalypse, but hoping against hope. That’s what is Catholic.” [10]


Like all liberals and conciliar Catholics, Fr. Pfluger no longer understands the crucial importance of doctrine. And he expresses officially his implicit disdain for the great anti-liberal, anti-masonic and anti-modernist documents from 1831 (Mirari Vos) to 1950 (Humani Generis), and he didn’t provoke any kind of effective reaction. Fr. Pfluger seems not to know that preaching Christ crucified “in a convincing way” is “scandal for the Jews and madness for the Pagans.” What’s more, in dening the globalist plot against God, he pours contempt upon the teaching of the Church about the fight between two cities, and he denies a reality noticed even by non-believers – which cannot make the Faith attractive… Finally, by setting up hope in opposition to apocalypse, he shows a radical ineptitude for any sensible politics, for the book of Apocalypse tells us: “And it was given unto the beast to make war with the Saints and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe and people and tongue and nation.” (Apoc. 13,7). Fr. Pfluger flees the cross and does not understand that Christian Hope does not consist of expecting the new Christendom in our apostate world, but awaiting, with a great desire, the glorious return of the Sovereign Judge.


Useless Reactions?


In 2014, Fr. Gaudray went to see Bishop Fellay, to demand an explanation for what Fr. Pfluger was getting up to. A nice smile and some beautiful words made all his demands vanish. Fr. Gaudray also refused to participate in the stage-managed visit of Bishop Schneider to Flavigny. Bishop Fellay gave him a severe and unjust telling off for it. Our poor confere therefore wrote a brief and tortured article entitled: “Obedience to Fallible Superiors” …So as to satisfy his conscience, he would write once more to the faithful: “The new religion founded by Vatican II is founded upon the principles of the Revolution. …The conciliar church never ceases proclaiming its attachment to the “values” of the Revolution… Between them and us, the opposition is radical, the positions irreconcilable… God will always forgive the weak, but He rejects those who do not want the light. Priests who no longer pray or no longer study are, by necessity, engaged in betrayal.” [11]


That’s nice, but it’s not enough to protect the SSPX faithful. We attack Vatican II but not its penetration into the Society. It is not about favouring “anarchy and contempt for authority” as Fr. Gaudray thinks. “Doing penance to obtain good superiors from God”, “remaining humble”, is something necessary, but it does not dispense one from the priestly duty of naming the wolf, even when that wolf is called Fellay, Pfluger, Simoulin… Fr. Laguerie, at a meeting in Flavigny (Feb. 2015) was quite right in telling Fr. Bouchacourt, in front of the other priors, that Bishop Fellay was dishonest. Why not say so publicly?


From Internal Reaction…


At Flavigny we saw Fr. Troadec, when talking about the visit of Bishop Schneider, heckled by the disgruntled priors. We saw Fr. Bouchacourt go pale, realising that he could not control his district. Some people think that we won a battle there… It’s an illusion! This war is already lost. Fr. de Caqueray told Fr. Rioult in confidence, at the Chartres Pilgrimage in 2012, that: “Bishop Fellay [was] prepared to walk over more than one corpse.” Fr. de Caqueray, who was resisting the General House, indicated in 2013 that: “the book composed by Fr. Pivert has not been banned from being distributed by the General House. That is a baseless rumour […]. The reality is that our superiors have not asked me to withdraw this book from circulation.” [12] Today one can but smile at such subtlety, it shows the limits of this type of resistance.


Fr. Rousseau, in October 2013, reacted against the ‘canonisations’ of John XXIII and John-Paul II, writing: “Non Possumus! We cannot! […] This Pope of Assisi will, following a false beatification, be placed on the altars. Let’s be very clear about this: these altars are not Catholic and we cannot recognise this simulated ceremony. It is mimicry.” Today he is no longer a prior… For Fr. Pfluger, his transfer is due to his “serious faults”. [13] Fr. Delagneau forbade Fr. Deren from quoting Archbishop Lefebvre so that he wouldn’t stand out from the preaching of the other priests in the priory… Fr. Beauvais received an outrageous letter from Bishop Fellay accusing him of being unworthy of any position of responsibility, which would justify his departure from St. Nicolas du Chardonnet…


The liberals are in charge of the Society and are persecuting those who oppose their will. Punishments and transfers will serve the inevitable ‘purification’ which is going on. Dear confreres, let us re-read Fr. Pfluger’s conferecnes given to the Society Brothers at Flavigny in January 2014. In the 7th conference, we can read: “All these departures will be a purification for the Society and must be seen as a blessing.” Let’s not have any illusions, Satan’s masterstroke is happening all over again: the destruction of the social body through obedience. And: “Woe to him who does not consent. He can be stamped on, calumniated and deprived of all means of susbsistence.” [14]


…to External Survival


The letter from one prior addresses to three bishops, two assistants, Fr. de Caqueray and three members of Fr. Pinaud’s tribunal, contains a good summary of the situation in our Society:

“At St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, 8th November last [2013], Fr. Nely told us that unity had to be restored. On this point he really has his work cut out, and what he’s talking about would be a real resurrection, because alas, whether it be an issue of doctrinal unity, or the bond of charity, in either case we can only note their complete disappearance. How could we have a doctrinal unity when we see at the top a division between two contradictory manners of speaking? This Doctrinal Declaration [of 2012] is not dead because it was only withdrawn for extrinsic reasons, because it was dividing us, or because it was misunderstood. Thus the text may be withdrawn, but not the thinking which underpins it and which is still alive, a thinking which is expressed elsewhere in other texts which have not been withdrawn at all. It is this thinking which is dividing us, and it will continue to divide us as long as we do not return to examine it. That is what accounts for Fr. Rioult’s attitude, the trial of Fr. Pinaud and the departure of quite a few zealous if sometimes excessive confreres. How man more of them are we going to lose, and for how many priests will you have to render an account to Almighty God? […] As far as the bond of Charity is concerned, I can only note that might as well no longer exist at all. We have entered into a logic of war, and a civil war at that. […] A Society without Fraternal Charity nor doctrinal unity, we will soon be a corpse without a soul […]. Such a unity cannot last long.”

Indeed, this prior systematically opens the mail of that sister to check what’s written there… This brother keeps watch on those priests in his priory so that he can warn the General House about any behaviour which ‘deviates’ from the official line… The headmaster of a school fires one of his female teachers for having skirts that are too long [in other words modest], because it bothers her work colleagues who themselves wear simply immodest skirts… etc.




A canon lawyer of the SSPX recently admitted: “The New Code of Canon Law is not there only so as to sort out problems with priests, but also so as to build bridges with the official Church.” Thus the Society is already ruled by the New Code and by the Roman Congregations. The main superiors of the SSPX are today sold-out in their own minds to an agreement, without there even having been any signature. The SSPX is mortally wounded, we can’t save it. And how many of our confreres are currently being destroyed on the inside because they refuse to see this reality which makes them suffer?


Only one bishop, Bishop Williamson, and just one member of the General Chapter, Fr. Faure, have denounced the subversion which is taking place. Not one District superior or seminary rector has acted publicly and effectively against the corruption of our leaders. Fr. de Caqueray said that he was ready to make a move but that he was waiting for a bishop. What a useless pretext for doing nothing, since he himself said in confidence: “Bishop de Galarreta is too attached to his own comfort” and he knew that if Bishop Tissier saw things clearly intellectually, he was humanly paralysed: his goal, so he wrote to a confrere, being: “To help Bishop Fellay recover his honour.”

If we continue to do nothing we will be left with nothing but our eyes with which to weep for not having had the courage to cry wolf. For Bishop Fellay is not a father who makes mistakes, but a ravening wolf who deceives us. Re-read his letter to Benedict XVI (17th June, 2012) and ponder well the full implications of this odious sentence: “Unfortunately, with the way the Society is at the moment, the new declaration will not get past.” [Malheureusement, dans le contexte actuel de la Fraternité, la nouvelle déclaration ne passera pas.] Too many of us are awaiting a future agreement before we react, whereas Bishop Fellay has already betrayed us because he has sided with the enemy.


Of course, we don’t have a strict duty to leave the Society, but we do have the duty to “publicly oppose errors and the proponenets of error, whoever they may be” [15] even and especially if they are close to home. How many are doing that? Will our next transfer, which will mean being shunted into a siding, be a sufficient and clear reason to react? Are we going to continue to obey a subversive leader who abuses his power in achieving ends which we condemn? [16]


Archbishop Lefebvre, who had respect for authority, was dumbfounded that the monks of Le Barroux: “Don’t take the initiative by leaving or founding another monastery or demanding that Dom Gerard resign. No. Nothing. We’re obedient.” [17] Archbishop Lefebvre who had respect for authority, wanted to visit the Generals imprisoned at Tulle for having mutinied in Algeria. One of “these heroes whose prison I could see from the bishop’s palace” [18] recounts this fact: “The prison governor knew that we (Cdr. Camelin and Lt. Guillaume) knew that we were ringleaders, but was unaware of how far we could go. One day, at a meeting, he said to me: ‘You others, you officers, you ought to set an example of discipline in prison.’ In prison, setting an example of discipline in servitude, that’s the limit!” [19]


Let us imitate the conduct of Fr. Altamira, in Colombia. Having stayed in place as prior long enough to give the faithful sound instruction about the treason taking place, on the day of his transfer/purification (for Bishop Fellay never tells us face-to-face the reason why he’s smashing us), he was able to say “Non Possumus!” and to leave with the majority of the faithful, to start again nearby. We cannot abandon the faithful any more than we can allow our superiors to speak and act against the truth in our name. Priestly colleagues who wish to coordinate their efforts can get in touch with Bishop Faure at, fortunately consecrated on 19th March, 2015, by bishop Williamson in Santa Cruz.


Let us not flee the combat for fear of sharing in the solitude of Christ in His agony:

“The fear of being ridiculed, of having problems in our apostolic activity, of being doomed to material insecurity. Everywhere the fear of losing one’s social standing. All too rare are those who, because of Our Lord and His name, laugh in the face of the isolation of today and the incertitude of tomorrow.” (Fr. Calmel, Itineraire No.148)

[1] The Angelus, 20th April 2013 – DICI 07/06/2013


[2] 12th August 2014 audio file on


[3] DICI No.302, 10th October 2014


[4] Bishop Fellay, Cor Unum, March 2012


[5] Walter Brandmüller, “Le chiavi di Benedetto XVI per interpretare il Vaticano II”, Sienna, Cantagalli, 2012.


[6] Interview with the Latin Mass Society:


[7] Archbishop Lefebvre, foreword to Spiritual journey [translation ours]


[8] Fr. de Journa’s words taken from “Il Bolletino delle parrochie dell’isola”, 15th May 2001, DICI No.9, pp.12-15


[9] Fr. Celier: “L’Eglise déchirée, Appel aux catholiques Ecclesia Dei” [‘The Church torn asunder : an appeal to Ecclesia Dei Catholics’], Gricha publishing house, 1994, pp.81-86


[10] “Seven Questions for Fr. Pfluger”


[11] Fr. Gaudray “Carillon du Nord” newsletter, February 2015


[12] French District internal newsletter for priests, July 2013, No.251


[13] His crime was all the more intolerable because he appended to his text the drawing that Archbishop Lefebvre had had done in 1986, in which Our Lord rejects John-Paul II and sends him to hell. Fr. Pfluger on the other hand, replied to a Society Brother who was troubled by the canonisations: “Don’t be scandalised. They have a different concept of sanctity to us. But it’s always been like that in the Church, each Pope beatified his predecessor.” (Flavigny, Jan. 2014)


[14] Archbishop Lefebvre, “Satan’s Masterstroke”, 13/10/1974


[15] 25th Anniversary Declaration by three bishops, 27th June, 2013


[16] “Unless one lives as one thinks, one will end up thinking as one lives…”


[17] Conference at Econe, 8th October 1988


[18] Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, [p.286 in the French edition]


[19] Memoires of Pierre Guillaume, Plon, 2006, p.321