Thanks to a French Canadian gentleman of the Resistance, here is a translated into English extract of a conference given by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on April 11, 1990 in Econe, Switzerland.  This extract concerns the liturgical reforms attributed to Pope John XXIII.  It is clear from this conference that a true follower of Archbishop Lefebvre cannot reject the 1962 Missal and Breviary.


The audio extract (in French) of the conference regarding this subject is provided below, courtesy of the same French Canadian gentlemen.


 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

The owner of the website Milita Jesu Christi found a gem on Bishop Williamson’s former public position on the New Mass.  You may listen to the audio recording below.  I do not know the date and place of this recording.


In this recording, Bishop Williamson says that the New Mass is “illicit in any case”, that it is “intrinsically evil”, and that “one may not attend a valid, illicit Mass anymore than a Satanic Mass”.  Wow!  What a difference this is from what the same Bishop Williamson said to the lady in the Mahopac, NY conference given on June 28, 2015, where he basically told her that it was okay to continue attending the New Mass so long as her faith was nourished by it.  The words His Excellency uttered in this conference (and his later Eleison Comments) have caused strife within the Resistance between priests and faithful alike.  Yet, His Excellency has not backed down from what he said at that conference.


What a shame it is that an old wound has been opened up by His Excellency on a matter that had already been settled by Archbishop Lefebvre, which is that the New Mass is bad in itself and hence it may not be attended despite the reverence with which a priest celebrates it.  Therefore, the faithful followers of the Archbishop must resist Bishop Williamson or any other Resistance bishop, priest, or faithful who defend his words.


 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

“I became aware of this desire of Rome to impose on us their ideas and their way of seeing things. Cardinal Ratzinger always said to me, “But, Monsignor, there is only one Church, you must not make a parallel Church.”


What is this Church for him? The Conciliar Church, this is clear! When he explicitly told us: “Obviously, if we grant you this protocol, some privileges, you will also have to accept what we do; and therefore, in the Church of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, a New Mass will also have to be said every Sunday.”…


You see clearly that he wanted to bring us back to the Conciliar Church. This is not possible because it is clear that they want to impose these innovations on us to put an end to Tradition. They grant nothing out of esteem for the traditional liturgy, but simply to deceive those whom they give it to, and to diminish our resistance, to drive a wedge in the Traditional block to destroy it.


These are their politics, their conscious tactics! They do not make mistakes and you know the pressures they exert …”

(Conference at Econe, September 9, 1988)

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

“The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.” 

(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, “Two Years after the Consecrations”, Address Given to Priests in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990)

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

I think that many of those that left us to rejoin Rome, (isn’t that right,) did not rightly understand what liberalism is and how the Roman authorities at the moment, since the Council in particular, are infested with these errors. They did not understand. If they had understood, they would have fled, they would have avoided, they would have stayed with us. But they do not want to believe these errors. This is serious because by moving closer to these authorities, one is necessarily contaminated. These authorities are imbued with these principles, live with these principles – these principles of liberalism. Inevitably, they act in conformity with their ideas. And therefore, they can only have relations with us. They begin to have relations with us – relations which little by little impose these ideas on us, since they are the authorities. They are the authorities and we are the subordinates, so they impose these ideas on us. It is impossible otherwise. As long as they do not rid themselves of these errors – these errors of liberalism and modernism – there is no way we can come to an agreement with them. It is not possible. We cannot approach them because immediately we have to submit to their orientations.

(September 22, 1988)

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

Thanks to a French Canadian gentleman of the Resistance, here is a translated into English extract of a conference given by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on April 11, 1990 in Econe, Switzerland.  This extract is from the second part of the conference, which deals with the Novus Ordo Missae.


In addition, two audio extracts are provided below, courtesy of the same French Canadian gentlemen, of the same conference (in French) given by Archbishop Lefebvre.


1. The Novus Ordo Missae


2. The Liturgical Reform


It is clear from the Archbishop’s words that he would not give permission for one to positively assist at the Novus Ordo Missae for any reason whatsoever, unlike what Bishop Richard Williamson did, as demonstrated in this post.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

In the post “Question:  May I Ever Assist at the Novus Ordo Missae?  Answer:  No!”, I wrote that there can never be any justification whatsoever for assisting at a Mass celebrated using the Novus Ordo Missae (i.e., New Mass) because the Novus Ordo Missae is instrinsically evil (i.e., in and of itself).  No good end end or circumstance, therefore, can justify assisting at it.  To put it simply, the Novus Ordo Missae is the product of the Conciliar Church, the man-centred religion founded upon the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.  It is not the product of the Catholic Church, the one and only true Church founded by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  As such, the Novus Ordo Missae cannot be pleasing to God.  That the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil was the position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that he founded.  His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamon admitted this in his December 1, 1996 Letter of the Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (emphasis mine):


“Q: But does not Michael Davies say that attending the Novus Ordo Mass fulfills one’s Sunday duty? And that Archbishop Lefebvre said the same thing?


“A: When Michael Davies says it, it is because he claims that the officially promulgated Novus Ordo Mass cannot be intrinsically evil, otherwise the Catholic Church would be defectible. When Archbishop Lefebvre said it, he meant that the Novus Ordo Mass is objectively and intrinsically evil, but Catholics unaware of, or disbelieving in, that evil, because of the rite’s official promulgation, may subjectively fulfill their Sunday duty by attending the new Mass. The third Commandment says, thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy, not, thou shalt attend a semi-Protestant Mass.”


In Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments “Host’s Parasite – I” (Issue #445 dated January 23, 2016), he begins with the following statement (emphasis mine):


“The purpose of saying half a year ago that a priest is not obliged in every case to forbid a Catholic to attend the New Mass (NOM) was obviously not to say that the NOM is perfectly alright to attend.”


Of course, a priest is not obliged, for example, to go stand in front of a Novus Ordo church and forbid people from attending the New Mass.  However, this is not the case Bishop Williamson was faced with during a conference he gave on June 28, 2015 in Mahopac, New York to which conference he alludes in the statement above.  Rather, in this conference at the 1 hour, 1 minute, and 40 seconds mark, a lady tells her story that she attends the Latin Mass on Sunday and the Novus Ordo Missae during the week.  She justifies her attendance by citing two objective circumstances:


1) The priest celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass in a reverent way.

2) She believes that the priest believes he is changing the bread and wine in to the Body and Blood of Our Lord.  (Note:  External action is how the priest’s intention to do what the Church does is manifested.)


The lady was seeking the counsel of Bishop Williamson on whether it would be morally acceptable for her to continue attending the Novus Ordo Mass under these good objective circumstances.  Since Bishop Williamson knows what Archbishop Lefebvre taught regarding this matter (i.e., that the New Mass is intrinsically evil) and since he is a spiritual son of the Archbishop, here was a good opportunity for him to firmly, but gently, tell the lady that she ought not to attend the Novus Ordo Mass anymore.  However, this is not what we heard from his lips.  Rather, at the 1 hour, 3 minutes, and 5 seconds mark, Bishop Williamson realizes that what he is about to say is controversial and invites the audience to chop off his head nonetheless.  He then proceeds to acknowledge those two circumstances the lady mentioned and then adds a third objective circumstance, that is, that it is important that she doesn’t scandalize anybody by her attendance.  Shortly thereafter, he brings up attendance at neo-SSPX Masses and that one needs to watch for potentially negative changes in neo-SSPX Masses.  If one starts to see such changes, then one must stay away.  He then says that one must be in the same way on guard for potentially negative changes in the Novus Ordo Mass.  Then at the 1 hour, 10 minutes, and 0 seconds mark, Bishop Williamson again states that one needs to watch and make decisions based on one’s own circumstances and that therefore there are cases where even the Novus Ordo mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it.  Then he recognizes that this statement is almost heresy within Tradition, but nonetheless that is what he thinks.


It is clear that Bishop Williamson’s answer to the lady is not consistent with Archbishop Lefebvre’s position that the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil because Bishop Williamson admits that there are good objective circumstances that morally permit one to assist at it.  This is unacceptable for a bishop consecrated as such by the Archbishop’s own hands!


Unfortunately, however, the story does not end here.  In addition to acknowledging objective circumstances that would morally permit one to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae, Bishop Williamson seems to go even further in the same conference in that one’s subjective view or circumstances also morally permit one to assist at the Novus Ordo Missae.  For example, at the 1 hour, 4 minutes, and 40 seconds mark, he states, “The golden rule is this…..the absolute rule of rules seems to me to be this:  do whatever you need to nourish your faith.”  Then at the 1 hour, 9 minutes, and 15 seconds mark, he states, “The essential principle is do whatever you need to keep the Faith.”  These statements are disturbing because they seem to be based on the perceived truth of the subject rather than on objective truth, which Bishop Williamson has always heralded.  Within the context of the conference, this means that if I believe that I need to go to a Resistance Mass to nourish my faith, so be it;  if I believe I need to go to a neo-SSPX Mass to nourish my faith, so be it; if I believe I need to go to an Ecclesia Dei Mass to nourish my faith, so be it; if I believe I need to go to a Novus Ordo Mass to nourish my faith, so be it.  Why then have we, Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers, been fighting for the last 50 years against the Conciliar Church, its rites, and those that defend them if now we can do “whatever we need to nourish our faith”?  Has objective truth given way to subjective perception?  It was the goal of the Archbishop and the SSPX he founded (and now that part of the Resistance that faithfully maintains the Archbishop’s position) to lead people out of their errors and not pander to them.  If Bishop Williamson wants to continue to claim that he is indeed a faithful son of the Archbishop, he must do the same by clearly acknowledging that the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil.  This means that his counsel must be that no good end or circumstance (objective or subjective) can ever justify assisting at it.  Period.


One may naturally inquire, “Why is Bishop Williamson opening up an old wound?  The question of the moral liceity of assisting at the Novus Ordo Missae has already been settled, at least among the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre.  What then are Bishop Williamon’s reasons for bringing this matter onto the front page Traditional Catholic news, so to speak, in the last several months?”  Well, according to His Excellency’s Eleison Comments “Host’s Parasite – I” referenced above, there are at least two reasons:


“Firstly, to ward off what is coming to be called ‘ecclesiavacantism’, namely the idea that the Newchurch has nothing Catholic left in it whatsoever.”¹ 


It is not a matter of the Newchurch (i.e., Conciliar Church) having nothing Catholic left in it whatsoever. The Anglican Church has Catholic elements in it as well.  However, the Archbishop and his followers hold that these Catholic elements do not make the Conciliar Church any more Catholic than the Catholic elements in the Anglican Church make it any more Catholic.  Rather, the Conciliar Church is a distinct entity from the Catholic Church because it, the Conciliar Church, is founded upon the man-centred religion of the schismatic Second Vatican Council just as the Anglican Church is a distinct entity from the Catholic Church because it, the Anglican Church, is founded upon the man-centred religion of the English schism.  The analogy is not perfect, of course, because the same man who occupies the Chair of St. Peter, and is hence the head of the Catholic Church, is also the head of the Conciliar Church, whereas this is not the case with the Anglican Church.  Nevertheless, to reject the analogy outright is to deny the distinction that the Archbishop made between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, which is essential to understand if one is to come out of the Conciliar Church without adopting Sedevacantism or if one is to avoid going into the Conciliar Church from the Catholic Church.  I do not believe that denying the distinction is the intention of Bishop Williamson, but in effect the distinction between the two Churches becomes somewhat blurred in his first reason.


“Secondly, to ward off potentially pharisaical scorn of any believers outside of the Traditional movement.”  


I agree with His Excellency that there are those considering themselves to be part of the Traditionalist movement who in their pride think themselves holier than those outside the movement.  However, this is not a problem with those who have a proper understanding of Archbishop Lefebvre’s position and have seen or heard about the love he had for those within the Conciliar Church.  His “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” is one beautiful manifestation of his love for them.


Let us pray and hope that His Excellency Bishop Williamson publicly changes his position regarding assistance at the Novus Ordo Missae to be fully in line with the one of his spiritual father.



1. This point of Bishop Williamson reminds me of Paragraph 8 of “Lumen Gentium” where it states that “these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling (Protestant sects, as such) towards catholic unity”.  This statement tries to give the impression that Protestant sects, as such, take legitimate part in the salvific work of the Catholic Church, the one and only true Church of Christ.  However, the Protestant sects, as such, do not take legitimate part in the salvific work of the Catholic Church.  In a similar manner, the Conciliar Church, as such, takes no legitimate part in the salvific work of the Catholic Church because it, the Conciliar Church, itself is a sect.  I do not imply here that Bishop Williamson adheres to this false idea of the Second Vatican Council and/or deliberately applies it to the Conciliar Church.  I am only trying to make the point that one could, as I do, see an interlacing of the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church in His Excellency’s first reason, thereby blurring the distinction between the two.

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

“We must absolutely convince the faithful that this is a maneuver.  That putting themselves in the hands of the Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome is a danger.  It is the greatest danger that menaces them.  For twenty years we have fought the conciliar errors, not to put ourselves into the hands of those who profess them.
(Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fideliter, July 1989, no. 70, p.13)


Source:  TradCatKnight


Dear priests of the neo-SSPX and faithful that attend their Masses, the neo-SSPX leadership is taking you right into the arms of Modernist Rome, precisely where the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned NOT to go.  So, please, wake up and resist the new direction!

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre | Tagged: |

Our Lady of Good Success prophesied to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres in Quito in the 17th century that a Holy Prelate would come to help restore the Catholic Church in our time.  Many believe that this prophecy was referring to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  The Archbishop himself stated the following during the sermon he gave at the June 30, 1988 episcopal consecration ceremony:


“It was not only the good Pope Leo XIII who said these things, but Our Lady prophesied them as well. Just recently, the priest who takes care of the priory of Bogota, Colombia, brought me a book concerning the apparition of Our Lady of ‘Buon Suceso,’ – of ‘Good Fortune,’ to whom a large church in Quito, Ecuador, was dedicated. They were received by a nun shortly after the Council of Trent, so you see, quite a few centuries ago. This apparition is thoroughly recognized by Rome and the ecclesiastical authorities; a magnificent church was built for the Blessed Virgin Mary wherein the faithful of Ecuador venerate with great devotion a picture of Our Lady, whose face was made miraculously. The artist was in the process of painting it when he found the face of the Holy Virgin miraculously formed. And Our Lady prophesied for the twentieth century, saying explicitly that during the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth century, errors would become more and more widespread in Holy Church, placing the Church in a catastrophic situation. Morals would become corrupt and the Faith would disappear. It seems impossible not to see it happening today.


“I excuse myself for continuing this account of the apparition but she speaks of a prelate who will absolutely oppose this wave of apostasy and impiety – saving the priesthood by forming good priests. I do not say that prophecy refers to me. You may draw your own conclusions. I was stupefied when reading these lines but I cannot deny them, since they are recorded and deposited in the archives of this apparition.”



Hence, the Archbishop believed that the prophecy may have been about him.  However, I propose that the Holy Prelate prophesied by Our Lady of Good Success was not Archbishop Lefebvre; rather, Our Lady was referring to a prelate yet to come.  As the basis of my argument, I shall use the biography written by a Fr. Manuel Sousa Pereira in 1790.  This excellent biography has been approved by the Church as a source of evidence in the process of canonization of Mother Mariana.  It has been translated from the original Spanish into English by Marian T. Horvat and is available from Tradition in Action in two volumes (Volume I and Volume II).


The Royal Convent of the Immaculate Conception was founded on January 13, 1577 in Quito.  The spiritual and temporal government of the religious (Conceptionists) was entrusted to the hands of the Rev. Father Antonio Jurado, O.F.M. (Volume I, p. 32).  Some time between 1593 and 1599, the Friars Minor prudently decided to step away from the direction of the Convent due to some troubles with certain sisters.  They did not, however, renounce their complete jurisdiction (Volume I, p. 97).  It was not until 1601 that the complete separation of the Friar Minors from the convent took place (Volume I, p. 99, footnote 30).  Ever since that time, the convent has been under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop.


An apparition of Our Lady of Good Success took place on January 16, 1599.  Part of the message that Our Lady gave to Mother Mariana this day was the following:


“The separation of the Friars Minor has taken place by divine permission.  Woe to those who openly worked to obscure the light of my Convent!  But after some centuries, they will return to govern this beloved flock, which will always lament their absence and feel their loss.


“….But a golden area will come to this my Convent.  Then a Prelado (prelate), my most beloved son, blessed and prized before God, will understand by divine light the necessity for the daughters of my Immaculate Conception to subject themselves in exact obedience to the Friars Minor for their sanctification and perfection.  This Prelate will ask my Vicar of my most Holy Son here on Earth to restore the jurisdiction over this Convent to the Friars Minor” (Volume I, pp. 143-144).


In this message, we read that the Holy Prelate will restore the jurisdiction over the convent back to the Friars Minor.  As mentioned above, this has not happened yet.  And Archbishop Lefebvre died in 1991.  Our Lady, therefore, was not referring to Archbishop Lefebvre.


In another apparition of Our Lady of Good Success that took place on February 2, 1634, part of the message She gave to Mother Mariana this day mentions again the Holy Prelate:


“In this epoch (our time), the Secular Clergy will be far removed from its ideal, because the priests will be careless in their sacred duties.  Losing the divine compass, they will stray from the road traced by God for the priestly ministry and they will become attached to wealth and riches, which they will unduly strive to obtain.


“How this Church will suffer on that occasion the dark night of the lack of a Prelate and Father to watch over them with paternal love, gentleness, strength, discernment, and prudence.  Many priests will lose their spirit, placing their souls in great danger.


“Pray insistently without tiring and weep with bitter tears in the secrecy of your heart, imploring our Celestial Father that, for love of the Eucharistic Heart of my Most Holy Son and His Precious Blood shed with such generosity and by the profound bitterness and sufferings of His cruel Passion and Death, He might take pity on His ministers and quickly bring to an end those ominous times, sending to this Church the Prelate who will restore the spirit of its priests” (Volume II, pp. 212-213).


Now Archbishop Lefebvre did indeed restore the spirit of many priests after the calamitous Second Vatican Council.  However, he did not do so on a grand scale as virtually every priest worldwide adopted the reforms of the Council, especially the Novus Ordo Missae, and remain attached to them to this very day.  Furthermore, the Archbishop’s work did not “bring to an end those ominous times”; rather, the Church as a whole has gotten worse since the Council and is currently in the worst state under Pope Francis than it has ever been.  History shows that the Archbishop’s work was more related to the preservation of the Church than to its restoration.  The Holy Prelate’s work, on the other hand, will be that of a full restoration.


In the same February 2, 1634 message, Our Lady continues:


“The lukewarmness of all the souls consecrated to God in the priestly and religious state will delay the coming of this Prelate and Father.  This, then, will be the cause of the cursed Devil taking possession of this land (Ecuador), where he will achieve his victories by means of a foreign and faithless people, so numerous that, like a black cloud, it will obscure the limpid heavens of the then-Republic consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of my Divine Son.


“With these people, all the vices will enter, which will attract in their turn every type of chastisement, such as plagues, famines, internal fighting and external disputes with other nations, and apostasy, the cause of the perdition of so many souls so dear to Jesus Christ and to me.


“In order to dissipate this black cloud that prevents the Church from enjoying the clear day of liberty, there were will a formidable and frightful war, which see the bloodshed of countrymen and foreigners, of secular and regular priests and also of religious.  That night will be most horrible, for, humanly speaking, evil will seem triumphant.


“This, then, will mark the arrival of my hour, when I, in a marvelous way, will dethrone the proud and cursed Satan, trampling him under my feet and fettering him in the infernal abyss.  Thus the Church and Country will finally be free from his cruel tyranny” (Volume II, pp. 213-214). 


Note that this time of trouble occurs after the time of Garcia Moreno, who consecrated Ecuador to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, as Our Lady says that “it (the time of the Devil taking possession of Ecuador due the lukewarmness of consecrated souls) will obscure the limpid heavens of the then-Republic consecrated to the Most Sacred Heart of my Divine Son“.  Therefore, Our Lady is referring to a period after the period of relative prosperity in Ecuador that resulted from the consecration.  However, Our Lady added that She will finally free the Church and Country from the Devil’s cruel tyranny.  This has yet to happen, but when it does, Our Lady will have the co-operation of the Holy Prelate.


With the impending formal apostasy of Rome, the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, the betrayal of the SSPX leadership, and the two Resistance bishops adopting the impotent “loose association” model, is there any doubt that we need the help of the Holy Prelate now more than ever?  No!  Let us then implore Our Lady of Good Success to send him to us soon.


Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us!

 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |

The video shown below is of a conference given by His Excellency Bishop Jean-Michel Faure on December 1, 2015 in Post Falls, Idaho. At about the 61 minute mark, a layman asks His Excellency whether he will do what His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson has refused to do, that is, take the reins and lead the Resistance.  The layman was basically asking Bishop Faure whether he will form an organization that will continue the work of the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre.  Bishop Faure said he will not do so for now.  This is the first time that I have heard Bishop Faure explicitly state that he will not organize another religious society of priests for the time being.  I must say that I was rather disappointed.  It is not that I and others want another brand new organization; rather, since the neo-SSPX has deviated from the path of Archbishop Lefebvre, we want the continuation of the work of the Archbishop by the formation of a hierarchically structured society akin to the former SSPX.  This would be similar to what the Dominicans of Avrille have done, that is, they have continued the rule and spirit of the St. Dominic while the Dominicans in the Novus Ordo wallow in the Vatican II revolution.  The idea of a loose association of priests is not consonant with the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church.  Therefore, it is bound to fail; it is failing.  The mess that the Resistance finds itself in, I am convinced, is greatly due to the lack of a hierarchical structure.  Yet those that have the power to do something about it, namely the two bishops, have decided to maintain a loose structure, at least for now.  Can you imagine what would happen if the Dominicans of Avrille decided to organize loosely amongst themselves?  It would become chaotic!  No; we need an organization with an authority holding it together.


There are two main reasons why Bishop Faure said that a hierarchically structured society akin to the former SSPX would be difficult to establish at this point in time:


  1. It is dangerous to have a centralized organization (just look at what happened to the SSPX under Bishop Fellay);
  2. There are strong-willed Resistance priests who would not want to be part of an organization.

Regarding the first point, that the leadership of an organization may try to take that organization in a different direction from the one for which it was constituted, we have countless examples from history.  Just look at what happened to the Catholic Church during and after the Second Vatican Council; the Vicars of Christ themselves have betrayed His one and only Church!  Should we be surprised then that it has and will happen over and over again with lesser societies?  With Bishop Faure’s line of reasoning, why then does he support the hierarchical structure of the Dominicans of Avrille?  After all, they could be subverted from within as well.  Sorry, but the line of thought of this first point just doesn’t make much sense.


Regarding the second point, I know two strong-willed Resistance priests that actually want to be part of an organization.  They claim that they continue to be members of the SSPX, but since the neo-SSPX has veered off the Archbishop’s path, they have called upon the Resistance bishops to continue the work of the Archbishop by restoring the SSPX as it was under the Archbishop.  I say, “Give them a chance to prove themselves.”  If they end up refusing to submit in obedience, there is always the door.  Nevertheless, if there are strong-willed priests that don’t want to be part of an organization, so what?  They will not and do not need to join.  They can continue being independent.  Should the Resistance bishops then forsake the priests who do want to be part of an organization because of some who do not?  I hope not.  As a matter of fact, I will bet dollars to donuts that the lack of an organization prevents priests still in the neo-SSPX from leaving because they figure that they would have nowhere else to go.  If the Resistance bishops, instead, start an organization, they will have priests both inside and outside of the neo-SSPX flocking to join them.


We definitely thank Bishop Faure for starting a seminary with the Dominicans of Avrille to form priests, but this is only a part of the solution.  We need a hierarchical organization for existing priests.  Let us pray, then, that the Resistance bishops change their mind on this matter.  If not, let us petition them to consecrate a priest to the episcopacy who does want to continue the work of Archbishop Lefebvre via a hierarchically structured society akin to the former SSPX.  If it is only a matter of strategy (as one Resistance bishop has said, “There is more than one way to skin a cat”), then they should not be opposed to doing so.  The difference in good fruits between a structure and loose network will show itself, I am certain, in the structure bearing more.  Unfortunately, if the Resistance bishops continue to insist on not starting a structure or refuse to consecrate a priest to the episcopacy who wants to start one, can they then claim to be continuing the work of Archbishop Lefebvre (which was only the work of the Catholic Church) in its entirety?  I don’t believe so.  And if they acknowledge that they are not continuing the work of the Archbishop in its entirety, let us pray to Our Lord and Our Lady to send us a bishop who will do so.


 | Posted by | Categories: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre |