Can We Retain Our Faith in the Novus Ordo?

Within the Resistance, there have been comments to the effect that it is possible to retain one’s Faith in the Novus Ordo, and by extension, within the NSSPX and other Indult groups. The Archbishop is even quoted as supporting this concept in 1985.
While people within these groups may manifest signs of Faith, it is not objectively true to say that these groups are conducive to saving souls. Rather, God may give the Graces for these people to save their souls in spite of the Novus Ordo and the other groups.
In reality, we must consider the position of the Archbishop after the 1988 Consecrations, when he had exhausted all attempts to reconcile with the hierarchy in the Vatican who have lost Faith.
The book, Spiritual Journey, reviewed below, makes it clear that “It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest [and layman] wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith”.
The author also writes:
“This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family”.
Therefore, we cannot fall into accepting the convenience of attending Novus Ordo or Indult (and now NSSPX) Masses.

Spiritual Journey by Archbishop Lefebvre

Spiritual Journey is not another book on spirituality; rather, it is the Last Will & Testament of Archbishop Lefebvre addressed to the priests and seminarians of the Priestly Society of St Pius X.
The Archbishop goes straight to the heart of the matter in the Preface. He wants “…to transmit, before the progressive degradation of the priestly ideal, in all of its doctrinal purity and in all of its missionary charity, the Catholic Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, just as He conferred it on His Apostles, just as the Roman Church always transmitted it until the middle of the twentieth century” (iii). He continues: “…there appeared to me already the need, not only to confer the authentic priesthood, to teach not only the sana doctrina approved by the Church, but also to transmit the profound and unchanging spirit of the Catholic priesthood and of the Christian spirit essentially bound to the great prayer of Our Lord which His Sacrifice on the Cross expresses eternally” (iii).
Spiritual Journey is more than a pious reading; it is a call to arms for the defense of the Faith. What follows is a Thomistic treatise on Catholic spirituality with a special focus on the current apostasy within the Church specifically intended for the priests and seminarians. The Archbishop summarizes the situation: “The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity, through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family” (ix).
The Archbishop aptly labels this “religiosity” and identifies what lies behind it: “This “Conciliar Church” is imbued with the principles of 1789. These are Masonic principles with respect to religion and religions in general and with respect to civil society. Its foundation was an imposture inspired by Hell for the destruction of the Catholic religion, of its Magisterium, of its priesthood, and of the Sacrifice of Our Lord” (p 6).
The Archbishop warns his sons not to get poisoned by proximity to this “new religion”: “For as long as this Secretariat keeps the false ecumenism as its orientation and Roman ecclesiastical authorities approve it, we can affirm that they remain in open, official rupture with all the past of the Church and with its official Magisterium. It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith” (p 13).
The Archbishop recognizes the grave responsibility on the part of the hierarchy and the far-reaching consequences: “This apostasy [of popes and bishops] makes its members adulterers, schismatics opposed to all Tradition, separated from the past of the Church, and thus separated from the Church of today…”
(p 54).
The Archbishop offers a sober warning: “We will never fully understand the struggle between the good and the wicked throughout history, as long as we do not see it as the personal and unyielding battle for all time between Satan and Jesus Christ” (p 37). The Archbishop then asks: “What duty befalls upon every man because of this fundamental and unyielding battle…?” And he answers: “It is the duty never to compromise, on whatever it may be, with that which is of Satan or his followers, and to enlist ourselves beneath the standard of Jesus Christ, and there to remain always and fight valiantly” (p 37).
What practical tools does the Archbishop offer to his priests? The love of Our Lord and His Mother, solid prayer life, faithfulness to Tradition and the return to Thomistic studies: “St. Thomas shines among [the Church Fathers] like a light. His Summa Theologica is a chef d’oeuvre of collaboration between faith and reason, to establish Revelation on irrefutable bases. It clearly shows that these two are of divine origin and thus cannot help but mutually confirm one another. Faith remains nevertheless the surest source of the knowledge of God and of divine things. It remains the golden rule of wisdom” (p 65).
And he adds: “The Summa can be summarized thus: to come from God, to return to God, by the means of God – such is man’s destiny” (p 65).
And, like a good father, he concludes his treatise with words from St Paul speaking to Timothy: “…keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words… Fight the good fight of Faith; lay hold on eternal life” (p 68).

* * *

Since the Archbishop’s death in 1991, the apostasy he had warned against has infected his own SSPX. Was he then a failure?
Was Moses a failure for not preventing the Jews from falling into apostasy?
Was St Thomas More a failure for failing to prevent England from falling into Protestantism?
Was the Archbishop wrong when he warned his priests that they will meet with obstacles and persecutions? He told them: “Some will believe and others will turn away”. And he added: “Some will persecute us, as they did Our Lord and the apostles” (p 67-68).
Was he wrong to conclude with this solemn warning? “Let us keep the Faith above all else. It is for this that Our Lord died, because He affirmed His divinity. It is for this that all the martyrs died. Let us flee from those who make us lose the Faith or diminish it” (p 68).
Spiritual Journey is the Last Will & Testament of the Archbishop; it is also his adieu to all who keep the Faith.
Work cited:
Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Angelus Press, June 1991, 73 pp

* * *


Sr Constance (TOSF)


Read Archbishop Lefebvre’s They Have Uncrowned Him


When Archbishop Lefebvre called Vatican II the French Revolution in the Church, he was not being clever or witty. He was serious and he meant it literally. In They Have Uncrowned Him, the Archbishop gives a clear and concise refutation of the error of Liberalism, its origin in the 16th century Protestantism and its triumph in Vatican II.
Liberalism is so pervasive in today’s society that we are probably not aware of how infected we really are. They Have Uncrowned Him is a wake-up call for all:

  • The Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ is not a nostalgic wish; rather, it is a “dogma of the Catholic Faith, which no one can put in doubt without being a heretic” (p 99).
  • Likewise, Separation of Church and State is “an impiety and an error close to heresy” (p 102).
  • Archbishop Lefebvre calls Liberal Catholicism a “sickness of the mind” (p 111).
  • The Archbishop illustrates a rule: “Liberalism leads from compromise to betrayal” (p 229).
  • He calls Religious Liberty of Vatican II a “Masonic victory” (p 67).
  • He reminds us that we must have a correct sense of history or a goal of history, which is the “recapitulation [restoration] of all things in Christ” (p 140).
  • The remedy Archbishop Lefebvre offers is to return to the sane and sound Thomistic teaching (and therefore thinking) and then to rebuild the Social Kingship of Christ.
  • He warns that once confidence in the truth is lost, Catholics (Congar, Rahner, Murray, Bea, etc.) then turn away from God and engage in senseless dialogue with the world, which leads to compromises and to the inevitable loss of Faith.

The Archbishop gave this book a subtitle: From Liberalism to Apostasy • The Conciliar Tragedy.
Since the publication of this book, several Traditional groups (Le Barroux, Campos, the Institute of Good Shepherd, the Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay) have been lost to Conciliar Rome.
More recently, the SSPX has pivoted towards Liberalism: In 2012, with the April 15 Declaration and the July General Chapter 6 Conditions, the SSPX openly abandoned the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre and pursued regularization/recognition with Conciliar Rome. This was followed by punishments and expulsions of priests who questioned and disagreed with the new orientation.
The Archbishop, after the 1988 Consecrations, clearly held the position that Vatican II cannot be understood in the Light of Tradition (chapter XXVII). He called the Council a “robber council” (p 163). Compare this with the April 15 Declaration, paragraph 4: “The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens – in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit – certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated.” 

Lessons to be drawn from They Have Uncrowned Him

Those who want to work from within the SSPX in order to bring the SSPX back to the founder’s principles and those who want to work from within Rome in order to convert Rome must remember that they are not exempt in any way from the fate that befell the other Traditional groups who were regularized/recognized by Conciliar Rome:
• They must be silent on thorny issues, for example, errors of Vatican II.

• They need to compromise on thorny issues in order to be accepted by others who have already compromised.

• Finally, Liberalism creeps in and the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ becomes an embarrassment (especially after they have lost all their friends). Suddenly, all these Catholic “things” (doctrines) become imprudent and must be deferred until better times.
From reading They Have Uncrowned Him, one must conclude that it is time to work for the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The first and the most important step is strict adherence to Catholic Doctrine. This means the refusal to compromise with liberals whether in Rome or scattered throughout the Indult communities.
The great Cardinal Pie understood that the only way to fight the Revolution is to be faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ. To Napoleon III, who prided himself for restoring Catholicism by implementing Religious Tolerance (Vatican II already at work), the Cardinal (then Bishop) answered: “[If] the moment has not come for Jesus Christ to rule, – well! Then the moment has not come for the government to endure [to stay in power]” (p 28). In other words, God will not bless those who compromise in order to do good. This is a violation of the principle that one cannot do evil in order to do good.
They Have Uncrowned Him should be read by all members of the Resistance and especially by those attempting to change the SSPX or Rome from within. The book was relevant when the Archbishop wrote it; it is equally relevant today.

Work cited:
They Have Uncrowned Him, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Angelus Press, November 1992,
3rd Edition, pp. 261


Sr Constance (TOSF)


Abp Lefebvre and Non Una Cum

Archbishop Lefebvre preached a retreat to the religious of Saint-Michel in Brenne, France, April 1st 1989, wherein he commented on the non-una-cum position of the sedevacantists.


Our friends in Quebec have provided the audio file and a translation of a transcript.
Monseigneur Lefebvre et l’Una Cum – Archbishop Lefebvre and the Una Cum – Transcript


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

Bishop Fellay Betrayed the Catholic Faith and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre – Fr. David Hewko

Here is seven minute extract of a sermon given by Fr. David Hewko in Denver, Coloardo on March 23, 2014.  Father tells it like it is in that Bishop Bernard Fellay has betrayed the Catholic Faith and the memory and mission of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  Those priests, religious, and faithful who go along with Bishop Fellay either by their culpable silence or explicit approval ought to be ashamed of themselves.  By doing such, they have chosen false obedience, comfort, or whatever else over Our Lord.  Meanwhile, Bishop Richard Williamson and the Resistance priests are on the front line battling for the glory of God and salvation of souls.  Deo gratias for such true Catholic warriors!


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Pope Leo XIII continues:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Let us now sum up the key points:


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

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

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


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


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

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

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




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

2nd Anniversary of Infamous Sermon of His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay

Today is the second 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?  It does make sense, however, if the doctrinal discussions actually convinced Bishop Fellay that Rome was not so wrong after all.  Hmmm.


You may also listen to the Feb. 2, 2012 sermon here.  Start at the 39:50 mark if you want to hear Bishop Fellay’s statement quoted above.


For a history of the changes in the SSPX leadership’s attitude regarding a canonical regularization, please download the article I wrote one year ago entitled “The Society of St. Pius X and the Diocesan Bishops”.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Conference – May 11, 1976 – Minneapolis, Minnesota

The Restoration Radio Network recently presented a conference given by the saintly Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on May 11, 1976 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  In this conference, Archbishop Lefebvre speaks about the Second Vatican Council and the reforms emanating from it.  His attitude is one of aversion towards this Council and the consequent reforms which, unfortunately, has not recently been the attitude of some of his spiritual sons; rather, they now consider the Second Vatican Council to be part of Catholic Tradition.  Yuck!


Let us keep away from the neo-SSPX and instead follow the Archbishop’s spiritual sons (e.g., Bishop Richard Williamson, Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, Fr. David Hewko, Fr. Francois Chazal) who have remained faithful to his mission and memory.

We Want Solid Doctrine!

“Purity of intention, generosity, ardor and eloquence will never replace solid doctrine.”

(Liberalism & Catholicism, Fr. A. Roussel, Compiled from Conferences Given in 1926, Angelus Press 1998 English Edition, Translated from the French by Fr. Coenraad Daniels, SSPX)  


If you want solid doctrine, go to the priests of the SSPX-Marian Corps (e.g., Frs. Pfeiffer, Hewko, Chazal) who have remained faithful to that great man of the Church of the 20th century, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.  You will not find it in the leaders of the neo-SSPX who have betrayed their founder by accepting that Vatican II is part of Catholic Tradition.  It is not!  Rather, it is from hell!  I have no doubt that one day the Church will condemn this wretched Council.