You may download here a partial text of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s conference to the seminarians of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in the United States on April 28, 1983. The topics are listed on the first page.
You may download here a text of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s conference to the seminarians of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in the United States on April 26, 1983. The topics are listed on the first page.
You may download here a text of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s conference to the seminarians of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in the United States on April 25, 1983. The topics are listed on the first page.
You may download here a text of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s conference to the seminarians of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in the United States on April 24, 1983. The topics are listed on the first page.
You may download here a text of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s conference to the seminarians of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Ridgefield, Connecticut in April 1982. The subject in this conference is “Concerning the Unity in the Society”.
In a post dated April 2, 2018, Mr. Sean Johnson writes in his blog Sodalitium Pianum that in 2007 he and his wife to be had to sign this form of the SSPX U.S.A. District prior to the priest consenting to marry them. Mr. Johnson points out the statement of most interest on page 1 of the form relevant to the recent marriage that took place in a Novus Ordo parish (emphasis mine):
“Moreover, I insist on my right to receive all the sacraments in an entirely traditional way, and consequently refuse to have my wedding celebrated by a priest who celebrates the new Mass, or in a church in which the new Mass is celebrated.”
What a difference between the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre and the neo-SSPX of Bishop Fellay!
I would love to see the form currently required by the SSPX in Canada or the U.S.A. to be signed by a couple intending to marry. If anybody has either, please send it to me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
As a side note, the same form noted by Mr. Johnson also contains the following (emphasis mine):
“Moreover, I have grave objection, in conscience, in asking for the Indult granted by His Holiness Pope John Paul II (October 3, 1984), even should it be allowed in my parish, since its application is based upon a compromise, namely the acceptation that the New Mass is a licit Catholic rite and that the traditional Mass does reflect our refusal of the errors of Vatican II.”
Here is another piece of evidence that the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the New Mass. Yet we have His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson now of the public position that one may actively attend the New Mass under certain circumstances, and the likes of Mr. Johnson defending him. Hmm. But does that not transform the New Mass into a licit Catholic rite, at least under certain circumstances? Confusing. That’s the false resistance for you!
Here is a link to the most frequently asked questions about the SSPX, that is, the SSPX of the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
Today is the sixth anniversary of that infamous sermon given by His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota. The following is the quote that really caught my ear back then:
“We told them very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things, then we are ready.”
By these words Bishop Fellay publicly opposed the old SSPX adage of “no canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution”. In other words, he publicly adopted a position in opposition to that of the SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who from the 1988 Consecrations onward clearly and firmly held the position that Rome must accept the pre-conciliar Magisterial teachings prior to the resumption of discussions regarding a canonical regularization. It is true that there were almost two years of doctrinal discussions between Rome and the SSPX prior to this sermon, but the conclusion reached was that each party could not convince the other of its position.
My friends, does this make any sense? The SSPX starts the doctrinal discussions with Rome in 2009 with the position that the doctrinal differences between the two parties must be resolved prior to any canonical regularization. Then almost two years of discussions are held after which both parties cannot come to an agreement on the doctrinal discrepancies. Nonetheless, soon after Bishop Fellay is willing to accept a canonical regularization so long as Rome accepts the SSPX “as is”. Huh?
In His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson’s 548th Edition of Eleison Comments, he sounds more like the Bishop Williamson of old where he states clearly (emphases mine):
“…..ever since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) these have not been sane times, because the Roman churchmen themselves at that Council abandoned God’s true Catholic religion and adopted a false man-made religion which we can call Conciliarism. So ever since the 1960’s, Catholics have been confused from top to bottom of the Church, by trying to go in two directions at once. For instance, your Indult priest says the Mass of the true religion, while meaning to obey the Romans set upon the false religion. No wonder it confuses you to listen to him. And you will remain confused until you fully grasp the difference between God’s true religion and men’s Conciliarism….”
His Excellency is quite correct that a new religion was established at the Second Vatican Council by the Catholic Church hierarchy.
The new religion produced a (rotten) fruit called the Novus Ordo Missae, as proclaimed by Pope Paul VI in his Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum”:
“The recent Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in promulgating the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, established the basis for the general revision of the Roman Missal….”
Bishop Williamson has acknowledged this in the past. For example, in his 387th Edition of Eleison Comments, His Excellency writes about the distinctions necessary when speaking about the validity of the New Mass and New Rite of ordination and also states (emphasis mine):
“This playing between white and black, this ambiguity, is what is properly diabolical in the Conciliar reform of the sacramental Rites.”
Now if one is a Catholic, is not a Sedevacantist, admits that the Second Vatican Council established a new religion, and admits that the New Mass is a product of that new religion, does it not follow that he ought to declare that active attendance at the New Mass is morally strictly forbidden? Of course! Unfortunately, however, His Excellency has advised that one may morally actively attend the Novus Ordo Mass under certain circumstances (see here). Therefore, His Excellency has not been consistent with what he wrote in his two Eleison Comments quoted above. Rather, His Excellency would seem to answer in the negative to the question posed above. If that were the case, then His Excellency should advise the Catholic faithful that they may morally actively attend Mass celebrated in the Anglican Rite by a Catholic priest under certain circumstances. As strange as that sounds, the reasoning would follow.
Let us keep praying and hoping that His Excellency will return to the position of his spiritual father, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, stating that:
“I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass (i.e., Novus Ordo).”