A brief introduction into of Archbishop Lefebvre :

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was head of the Holy Ghost Fathers which was the largest missionary order serving the Roman Catholic Church in the Missionary areas of the world. Their numbers exceeded even those of the Society of Jesus in the mission field.

After his resignation as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers in September 1968, Archbishop Lefebvre lived in Rome, in retirement.

At the French Seminary in Rome (and at others too) the traditional routine of priestly formation was discarded. For example; Daily attendance at Mass ceased to be obligatory, the Sacrifice of the Mass became merely a 'commemoration' of a 'supper' or a 'meal.' Scholastic philosophy was discarded in favor of the dangerous theories of Modernism and Liberalism. Protestant doctrine began to be taught. Traditional Catholic moral issues were determinedly obscured. The teaching of Latin ceased. Basically the truths of the Faith were being diluted if not actually denied.

Archbishop Lefebvre was approached by parents with sons in the seminary. They expressed serious dissatisfaction with the formation their sons were receiving for the holy Priesthood. They begged the Archbishop to do something for their seminarian sons. He was moved to decline for many good reasons: he was retired, perhaps they exaggerated, he had no buildings, no money, no staff to take on the training of new priests, etc. etc.

It was only when the seminarians themselves sought him out, first in their ones, twos, threes and then the many, that he found his worst fears confirmed. They were all asking him to help them by taking over their priestly formation and training. As the months went by the requests continued and showed no signs of ceasing. After much prayer and reflection and prompted by God the Holy Ghost, the Archbishop finally agreed to try to help.

Once the Divine Will had been made known to him he was not slow to act. He first rented a house in Fribourg, Switzerland. Bishop Charriere gave his permission and support. This soon proved too small to accommodate the vocations that came to him. The seminarians attended lectures in the then still Catholic Dominican University nearby. The Fribourg seminarians, next became alarmed at the changes taking place in their Dioceses under the modernist bishops. They feared having to return to such dioceses after their ordination. They pleaded with the Archbishop to establish a religious society that would bind them together and protect their priesthood,  as "the spirit of truth does not permit novelties of this kind to arize without opposition." (Bossuet, Oeuvres completes,ed.Vives 1867,Vol.IV, Col.526 ff.)
 

In September 1970, the first year started at Econe with the approval of Bishop Adam, and November 1, 1970 Bishop Charrière canonically erected the "Priestly Fraternity of Saint Puis X" and approved its Constitutions. . Thus the Society of Saint Pius X came into existence. The Society was later given added formal approbation by the Holy See, this being communicated by letter dated 18 February 1971, from His Eminence John J Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Clergy.

The New Conciliar Mass of Pope Paul VI begun to be enforced in 1969-1970. This New Mass was gradually replacing the traditional Sacrifice of the Mass everywhere. In the University it was being exclusively said and taught to the students. It's non-Catholic elements, and therefore its dangers to the faith were also obvious. The Archbishop would have to found a Seminary of his own and operate it as seminaries were run at the time, and before, but without any of the new innovations. This is because "the true friends of the people are neither innovators, nor revolutionaries, but traditionalists" (St Puis X).

After founding the Society and opened his first seminary at the age of sixty-five (Most men retire at that age). As the years passed, it became increasingly difficult for him to travel around the world visiting the six Seminaries to perform the necessary ordinations as well as the innumerable necessary ceremonies of Confirmation. As he became older his health began to fail. It became essential that he had assistant bishops. Given the history of the general unreasonableness of Rome towards the Archbishop and his Society of St Pius X, it was unlikely that conciliar bishops would be minded to ordained his seminarists. This was due to their wish to stray from tradition unlike those who like the SSPX who wished only to hold to and defend the constant teachings of the Church. Further, those bishops were doctrinally unsound, and actively engaged in the concerted destruction of the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI, who issued two startling statements to that effect, professed this:

"The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-demolition [auto-destruction]. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in the great sessions of the Council. But ... one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church were destroying herself. --Pope Paul VI, December 7, 1968, Address to the Lombard Seminary at Rome

It is also true to say that their are some in Rome, wanted Lefebvre to break with the Pope, desiring that the traditionalist theology Lefebvre preached would then be irredeemably stigmatized as schismatic, even heretical (Inside the Vatican October 1998, p.13,). Further "one could make an astonishing list for propositions taught yesterday, and the day before in Rome, as the only acceptable ones, and which were eliminated by the Conciliar Fathers" - Cardinal Suenens, interview I.C.I 15/5/69

Cardinal Ratzinger freely acknowledged that Abp. Lefebvre was fighting against ideological Liberalism and the making of truth relative (AD 2000 Sept. 1988). In other words their are those in Rome (priest, Bishops, Cardinals etc) who seek to destroy the Church and her teachings (the Mass, Catholic dogma, Catholic belief etc.) and have them all done away with in order to destroy the Church instituted by Christ and introduce their own theology. This however in itself is like taking on God, and thus impossible. In every age God raises up faithful men and woman to defend the Church in order prevent the destruction of our Holy faith.

From this we see why if there were no bishops then no priest could be ordained. The Archbishop was also confronted with his own mortality. Rome knew this! Should he die leaving no bishops the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) would eventually die out. Rome knew this! Rome also considered that time was on their side while Archbishop Lefebvre had almost none left. So the Holy See decided to procrastinate for as long as necessary on the question of the bishops, with the hope that death would claim the Archbishop and thus, in their eyes, the problem would be no more.

Then Divine Providence intervened. God the Holy Ghost, as at Pentecost, inspired Archbishop Lefebvre to proceed with the consecration of his auxiliary bishops given the state of necessity existing in the Catholic Church. However Rome had agreed in principle on the point of episcopal consecration, but did not agree on the Archbishop's choice of candidates. He, nevertheless, went ahead with the consecrations, despite Rome's disapproval. And in obedience to the Divine Will the Archbishop consecrated four bishops on 30 June 1988 by reason of necessity.

To preserve the authentic teaching of the of the Catholic Church the Archbishop, trained priests in exactly the same way he, and many more before and after, were trained for near two thousand years. He trained them in exactly the same way priests were trained up to about 1962. He inculcated the same holy traditions he himself had received, and had taught during his distinguished career. He trained his priests to say the Catholic Mass, that was said by the Holy saints, martyrs and confessor and Church fathers throughout the ages. He did nothing new! He taught nothing new! He did not innovate!

True Obedience

Obedience can be good or bad, depending on whom or what you obey. Obedience to manifest error is sinful and the obligation to obey ceases once you are commanded to do some evil. This is affirmed by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888: " where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinace of God, obedience is unlawful, lest while obeying man, we become disobedient to God".

Obedience presupposes a authority which gives an order or issues a law. Human authorities, even those instituted by God, have no authority other than to attain the end apportioned them by God and not to turn away from it (2 Cor 13:10). When an authority uses power in opposition to the law for which this power was given it, such an authority has no right to be obeyed and one must disobey it. St. Thomas Aquinas confirms this saying that "sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things." (Summa, II-II, Q. 104, Art 5). These words of St. Thomas are not merely imaginary because it took place with regard to John XXII during his life. This pope thought he could state as a personal opinion that the souls of the elect do not enjoy the beatic vision until after the Last Judgment. He wrote this opinion down in 1331 and in 1332 he preached a similar opinion with regard to the pains of the damned. He had the intention of putting forward this opinion in a solemn decree. But the very lively reaction on the part of the Dominicans, above all in Paris, and of the Franciscans made him renounce this opinion in favour of the traditional opinion defined by his successor, Benedict XII, in 1336.

The Church does not consider all refusals of submission to be schismatic " Disobedience is not schism, no matter how obstinate it is, for as long as it does not contain a rebellion against the authority of the Pope or of the Church" (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.39, A.1 ad.8). A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority.

This principle here was ably stated dogmatically by Vatican I, which taught that the pope must submit to Sacred Tradition and the Deposit of Faith. The pope cannot innovate upon that Faith; if he does so he MUST be disobeyed. Yet this apparent disobedience would in actual fact be an act of obedience to the Pope since by his innovation he (the Pope) would be working against his office of Pope which is to "guard and defend the deposit of faith" - Vatican I. This is the constant teaching of the theologians, popes, and Doctors of the Church. This is because the head of the Church is Christ. The pope is only his vicar. As long as the vicar (substitute) represents his principal, he is to be obeyed. If he does not, he is to be disobeyed.

St. Thomas More who disobeyed Henry VIII when he refused to take the oath did not thereby deny the authority of the King to run the realm by his apparent act of disobedience. Any Failure to recognize these differences is to suggest that anyone charged with a simple crime under any system of law may be charged immediately and always with treason, for rejecting outright the authority of the lawgiver.

Let us not forget the words of St. Edmund Campion who wrote "I am a Catholic man and a priest. In that Faith have I lived and in that Faith I intend to die. If you esteem my religion treason, then I am guilty." He lived in similar times and went about the country, from manor house to town house, celebrating the Canonized Mass, within a milieu that treated the upholders of such a Mass a societal criminals and ecclesial outlaws . He lived ever mindful of those famous word of St. Thomas Aquinas "Hold firmly that your/our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church." He thus remained faithful to what was always taught at all costs!

Archbishop Lefebvre confirms to us his loyalty in his own words saying "As for us, they say that we have distanced ourselves from the See of Peter and from the Church. Yet is we who are the best defenders of both, we who are the most ready to defend the Holy See and the bishops in so far as they the successors of the apostles and the representatives of the church; but not the liberalism they profess." (Against the Heresies Pg. 120)

Fr. Le Floc, Seminary Rector of the French seminary in Rome (in 1926) had long ago foreseen "This heresy which is now being born, (and which) will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility".

Church history teaches us that numerous saints had to resist the Roman Pontiff and other Church authorities that were wrong. Thus for example St. Godefrey of Amiens, St. Hughes of Grenoble and Guy of Vienne (who later became Pope Calixtus II ) wrote to Pope Pascal II who was wavering concerning "the investitures": "If, what we absolutely do not believe, you would choose another way and would - God forbid - refuse to confirm the decisions of our paternity , you would force us away from obeying you." (Bouix, Tract, de Papa, T. II, p. 650).

Those who claim there is no limit to obeying the Pope only need look at the case of Pope Honorius I (625-638). Honorius was accused of favoring heresy, and was subsequently condemned by Pope St. Leo II and by subsequent Popes and anathematized (Dz 563) to be cast forth from the holy Church of God. If Honorius did not really favor heresy, then Leo II erred in condemning him. But if Leo II did not err in his condemnation, then Honorius was guilty of favoring heresy. Yet who would argue that it was better to obey Honorius than to defend the faith at any cost?

Thus helping to destroy the Church in the name of "obedience" is sinful as blind obedience is not, and has never been Catholic. This is confirmed by many saints, namely St. Catherine of Siena who said in her day: "There are times when those who obey . . .. are heading for Hell." (St. Catherine to Pope Gregory XI, 1376.)

The conclusion of the Holy Father that Abp. Lefebvre has become schismatic because of his mere apparent act of disobedience would if logically taken at face value imply that Pope John Paul II has also declared the whole Church schismatic. This is because the far great majority of Bishops in the world disobey the Pope on numerous issues, yet does this not mean that they are not also schismatic or does it just apply to faithful Catholics who wish to hold on to sound doctrine? Michael Davies put this better saying that "while such prelates as Weakland are still in good standing with Rome it would be ludicrous to so much as think about the society as being Schismatic" - The Remnant, Jan 31, 1989,P.5.

Pope is the Guardian of the Deposit of Faith. He cannot contradict his predecessors. He must reveres their teaching and carries their work on in the continuation of Tradition. The constant teaching of the Church suggests that one be less faithful to the personality of the pope and more faithful to the Roman Catholic papacy. It is often wrongly thought that to be in communion with Rome means to be union with some particular place or person. However to be in communion with Rome means ultimately to hold firmly to the Deposit of Faith as we become obedient to Rome only when we become obedient to the constant teaching of the church as taught as handed down to us by the Apostles and Apostolic Fathers, and by subsequent popes and councils in conformity with that (same) Deposit of Faith. If popes disagree with one another on essential points of Faith and Tradition, it's clear that something is not Catholic in that picture. Further the apostle warns us saying "'For there will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine...and will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables. But do thou be watchful in all things' (2 Tim 4:3-5).

In Galatians Chapter 2 we read how Paul rebuked Peter on the issue of circumcising the Gentiles. With regard to this episode St. Cyprian says: "Nor did Peter whom the Lord made the first, and on whom He built His church, act insolently and arrogantly when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision; he did not say that he held the primacy, and was to be obeyed..." (Epist. lxxi, n.3). St. Augustine, quoting this passage of St. Cyprian adds: "The Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the Apostles is pre-eminent by so singular a grace, when acting about the circumcision differently from what truth required, was corrected by the Apostle Paul."And so we see from Scripture that we are not to follow those who have Peter's authority when they contradict the faith.

St. Augustine (354-430) explains this further by saying " Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it."

Thus for this reason does St. Bernard state that : "He who does evil because he has been commanded does not perform an act of obedience but rather of rebellion, he upsets the order: he neglects obedience to God in order to obey men" - Complete works of St. Bernard, Charpentier, BookI, Ep.VII

Pope St. Gregory the Great taught the same in his Moralium ( lib. V, c. 10):

"Know that evil ought never to be done by way of obedience, though sometimes something good, which is being done, ought to be discontinued out of obedience."

The fact that there have been some 263 popes. A few of them have "gone off the rails, fallen into personal heresy, or been adjudged (after the fact) as being antipopes. Ultimately, the magisterium is not any particular pope, but simply "the authority of the Church, by divine appointment, to teach the truths of religious belief; the commissions of the Church to teach; the teaching office of the Church; the teaching and interpreting of the doctrines of the faith carried on by the Church through the Pope and bishops and those commissioned by them. It may be ordinary when a doctrine is proclaimed throughout the Church as part of divine revelation; or extraordinary when a general council defines a doctrine ratified by the Pope or when the Pope speaks as the official teacher of the Church (ex Cathedra) proclaiming or defining a matter of faith or morals.

Pope Benedict XIV in his treatise on Heroic Virtue clearly states:

"A superior is not to be obeyed when he commands anything contrary to the divine law. Nor is an abbot to be obeyed when he commands anything contrary to the rule, according to the well-known letter of S. Bernard to the monk Adam. A blind obedience excludes the prudence of the flesh, not the prudence of the spirit as is shown at length by Suarez."

The greatness of the office of the papacy lies in the office itself, and ultimately in the Holy Ghost, the Efficient Cause of infallibility. When you attribute infallibility to a man, and make ridiculous claims, like “I’d rather be wrong with the Pope than right without him,” that may be called love, but it is a misguided love; it is a love that ends in a worship of the created, rather than the Creator. When someone says, “I would rather be wrong with the pope than right without him,” they may think that they are affirming the papacy. But the very opposite is true— rather than affirming the papacy, they are actually rejecting it. Specifically, those who are saying, “I would rather be wrong with Karol Wojtyla than right with the Triune God” are rejecting the Catholic theology of the papacy. The doctrine of infallibility has limitations. The current attempt to extend infallibility to all things that the Holy Father does, says, or writes is not only intellectually dishonest, it borders on heresy. Infallibility must not be used to defend actions that cause great harm to the Mystical Body of Christ. To do so is more than dishonest. To do so is to blaspheme!

Sacred Scripture warns us about innovations and charges us to stand fast to Tradition. St. Peter himself warned us to obey God rather than man. (Acts 5:29). Did he, in saying so, perhaps have some foreknowledge of how much his name would be taken in vain, even by a few of his successors, to undermine the very office and Faith for which he died?

The Catholic Church does not change her teachings on religious matters to suit the times. She is always the same-- semper idem. The Catholic Faith is Universal in time and in place, thus what was believed to be true in 1950 can not possibly be false in 1998; for the Church does not contradict herself. Thus, when faced with novelties let us recall St. Vincent's of Lerins advice :

"Great care must be exercised that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is truly and appropriately Catholic."

St. Cajetan points out that the famous axiom "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia" (Where the Pope is, there is also the Church) holds true only when the Pope acts and behaves as the Pope, because Peter is subject to the duties of the Office"; otherwise, "neither is the Church in him, nor is he in the Church." (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 39, Art. 1, ad 6)

History teaches us that St. Athanasius had to "disobey" Pope Liberius (Dzs 238). But such apparent his "disobedience" was not real disobedience, but rather true obedience to the Church and it's constant teaching. Lefebvre further make his position clear saying, "We declare our attachment and our submission to the Holy See and to the Pope." We note from the example of such saints that they continued to remain faithful to the Eternal Rome, which is indeed the Mistress of Wisdom and Truth.

The Pope is the vicar of Christ not His successor, he is the supreme authority of the Church but not the absolute authority. In other words it's Christ's Church and the Pope is their to defend and direct it. This is precisely how the First Vatican Council defined it, in that " the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of St. Peter in order to pronounce a new doctrine but so that they should hold traditional teaching holy and interpret it faithfully".

However in light of Church history one should not thus be amazed that the SSPX has taken the path it has. As we find that in the 4th century, St. Jerome tells us that 80% of the bishops were heretics and while at the same time "The entire world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian" - Dialogus contra Luciferianos 19:ML 23,181. There is even doubt about the orthodoxy of Pope Liberius from that period who "began to sink under the hardships of his exile, . . . that he yielded to snare laid for him, to the great scandal of the Church. He subscribed the condemnation of St. Athanasius" - Rev. Alban Butler, Butler's Lives of the Saints, (Sarto Books, 1982, Originally Published 1844), P.180.

We are told that "In order to be safe from this contagious plague, the true faithful and disciples of Christ had to prefer the ancient beliefs rather than all these false novelties." (St.Vincent de Lerins Commonitorium). St. Vincent of Lerins further cites an example, which was then shortly after the "Holy Council" of Ephesus. There the bishops decided that "the best way of proceeding, and that which was the most Catholic and most conformed to the faith, was to appeal to the opinions of the Holy Fathers . . . Having been enlightened by this way of proceeding, the impious Nestorius was rightly and justly judged as being in rupture with Catholic antiquity, whereas Cyril was found to be in communion with the very holy ancient Fatih." - St. Vincent of Lerins, op.cit.no.29

As St. Cyril had well had written against Nestorius saying that " The Tradition of the Faith is opposed to your affirmation. We have learnt to admire not a man who carries the divinity, but a God made man (Christ). You to the contrary speak in a totally different way." - Adversus Nestorium I,c.II.

The Principal aim of the SSPX is the re-evangelization and propagation throughout the world of the Apostolic Tradition and Deposit of Faith of the Catholic Church through the traditional formation of holy, zealous and generous priests to preserve the true Catholic Priesthood and the Latin Tridentine Mass and thereby serve as an effective antidote to the poison of Modernism, the heresy which hall all but destroyed the true Catholic Faith."

We must NOT wrongly think that SSPX is the Catholic Church, or that outside the Society there is no salvation, but that it (SSPX) is only part of the Catholic Church much like any other Catholic organization. This is because the SSPX recognizes John Paul II as Pope of the Catholic Church.

Archbishop Lefebvre declared in 1973 " My collaborators and myself are not working against anyone, against other persons, against institutions. We are working to construct, to continue what the Church has always done, and nothing else. We are not linked with any movement, which any party or with any organization in particular. We are united only to the Roman Catholic Church, and we wish to continue the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing else!"

We adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome, the guardian of the Catholic faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

Because of this adherence, we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies, such as were clearly manifested during the second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms.

All these reforms have, indeed contributed and still contribute to the demolition of the Church, to the ruin of the Priesthood, to the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice and of the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to naturalistic and teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries, and catechetics, a teaching born of Liberalism and Protestantism many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church. No authority, even the very highest in the hierarchy, can constrain us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic faith, such as it has been clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema". (Gal. i. 8.) Is this not what the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if a certain contradiction is apparent in his words and actions, as well as in the acts of various Roman Congregations, then we choose what has always been taught, and we turn a deaf ear to the innovations which are destroying the Church.

The "lex orandi" (law of prayer) cannot be profoundly changed, without changing the "lex credendi" (law of belief). The new Mass is in line with the new catechism, the new priesthood, new seminaries, new universities, and the charismatic or pentecostal church, all of which are in opposition to orthodoxy and to the age-old Magisterium.

This Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.

It is for this reason that, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of the formation of priests under the star of the age-old Magisterium, in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to future generations.

For this reason we hold firmly to all that has been believed and practised by the Church of always, in her faith, morals, worship, catechetical instruction, priestly formation and her institutions, and codified in the books which appeared before the modernist influence of the late Council.

Meanwhile, we wait for the true Light of Tradition to dispel the darkness which obscures the sky of the eternal Rome.

By acting thus we are sure, with the grace of God, and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph and Saint Pius X, of remaining faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all the successors of Saint Peter, and of being "fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen".

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:18)

Marcel Lefebvre

Rome - On the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1974

The consecration of Bishops in no way creates a schism and no canon lawyer with any knowledge of canon law would say it does. For this reason Fr. Patrick Valdini , Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris said that Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act by the consecrations, for he didn't deny the Pope's primacy. "It is not the consecration of a bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission." Which is something Archbishop Lefebvre never did (Question de Droit ou de confiance, L'Homme Nouveau, Feb.17, 1988).

We read that the Code Canon Law of 1917 spoke of "necessity" in Canon 2205, §2 and §3; the Code of 1983 deals with it in Canons, 1323, sec.4 and 1324, para. 1, sec.5. It is clear from the context that necessity is a state wherein goods necessary for life are put in danger in such a way that to come out of this state the violation of certain laws is inevitable.

The Code recognizes necessity as a circumstance, which exempts from all penalties in case of violation of the law (New Code of 1983. Canon 1323, sec.4), provided that the action is not intrinsically evil or harmful to souls; in this latter case necessity would only mitigate the penalty. But no "latæ sententiæ" penalty can be incurred by anyone who has acted in this circumstance (CCL 1983 Canon 1324, para.3). Further schism as defined in Canon 751 means refusal of subjection to the supreme pontiff or refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority.

Archbishop Lefebvre believed that such a state of necessity existed in the Catholic Church. . Popes Paul VI and John Paul II confirm both this fact in the following:

" We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, and confrontation.... We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties. -- Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1972, Homily during the Mass for Sts. Peter & Paul, On the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation in his response to Vatican II

"There is need to admit realistically and with a deep and sober sensibility that Christians today, for the most part, are dismayed, confused, perplexed and even frustrated; ideas conflicting with revealed and constantly taught Truth have been scattered by handfuls; true and real heresies in the sphere of dogma and morals have been spread, creating doubts, confusions, rebellions; the liturgy has been violated; immersed in intellectual and moral "relativism" and therefore in permissiveness, Christians have been allured by atheism, by agnosticism, by a vaguely moralistic enlightenment, by socialistic Christianity, without defined dogma and without objective morals" - Pope John Paul II, L'Ossevatore Romano, Feb.7,1981.

Thus there can be no doubt (or denial) that we are living in a time of unprecedented crisis as "present day Catholicism is prey to a generalized apostasy; there no longer subsist within it any other than scattered groups of healthy supernatural cells, which in their turn, risk undergoing corruption if they are not warned of the peril in time (Preface to "Teilhard the Apostate" by Manuel de Corte the Proffessor & Philospher at the university of liege in Belgium, 1971).

A state of necessity thus justifies using the law of necessity. The law of necessity in the Church is the sum total of juridical rules which apply in case of a menace to the perpetuity or activity of the Church. This law of necessity can be resorted to only when one has used all possibilities of re-establishing a normal situation, relying on positive law. The Archbishop did all this. The law of necessity uniquely justifies the measures, which are necessary for a restoration of functions in the Church. The principle of proportionality is to be observed. In the History of the Church there are numerous cases of Bishops who, in extraordinary circumstance, when they found themselves in some of the same difficulties as those of the early centuries and, consequently, the necessity arose of using the Episcopal powers in all their fullness. However the case of whether or not many saints in the past acted directly or indirectly against the express will of the Pope is something that the adversaries of the SSPX have to prove, for in time of necessity when this is minor compared to the greater evil which is at stake.

This is because the preservation of the faith and the salvation of souls are the supreme law of the Church (Pope Pius XII, 2/10/1944 in an address to the Roman Rota, See also Can. 1752). Being the supreme law, all the others are subject to it.

In spite of the declaration made by Lefebvre explaining why he (and many other Catholic priests and bishops) believed it necessary to perform the Episcopal consecrations, the 1988 decree of Cardinal Gantin failed to take into account the above mentioned provisions of canon 1323 and 1324. Further if the Holy See really wanted to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre, it would have been necessary to proceed against him by imposing the penalty "senentia ferenda" after due process. The charge of schism would certainly have never have required the imposition of a lesser penalty at most, or possibly no penalty at all (Canon 1323 n.4) for the violation of canon 1382, if due process had been followed. It was obvious that the secretary of state did not want to run the risk of due process, and therefore the fraudulent procedure of issuing the incompetent decree of Cardinal Gantin was chosen instead.

For a Catholic excommunication to occur it must take place either positively by a special ceremony, or automatically by Church Law. Now Rome never performed any ceremony to excommunicate the Archbishop. It merely declared he had automatically excommunicated himself by Church law as never once did Pope John Paul II declare explicitly "I hereby excommunicate Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre." On July 2, the Pope merely declared that an "ipso facto" excommunication had taken place. It did not, according to Can. 1323 (1983 Code).

In order for one to be excommunicated he would have to break cannon Law. Much like in society one must first break the law in order to be lawfully arrested. However "it is not the consecration of a bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishops an apostolic mission" this is something Archbishop Lefebvre never did.

One must not fail to realize that Schism means secession from the pope, separation for the Church, which is something Marcel Lefebvre & the SSPX have never done, as they continue to profess their Loyalty to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. The Society of St Pius X has remained faithful in the constant teaching of the Church, for it is the apostle St Paul himself who strongly commands us to "Stand firm in the teachings and traditions" of the Church " (2 Thess 2:14).

In the History of the Church there are any numerous cases of Bishops who, in extraordinary circumstance, when they found themselves in some of the same difficulties as those of the early centuries and, consequently, the necessity arose of using the Episcopal powers in all their fullness, consecrated Bishops without adhering to the disciplinary norms of the time; they did so by virtue of this "Law of supplying (Ecclesia supplet)" which exists in the Church, as it does in all organizations, when the functioning of necessary and indispensable organs become endangered. Thus in the 4th Century, "St. Eusebius of Samosata and other bishops, not only consecrated but even established other bishops in Episcopal sees" (V.Manlio Simonetti, la Crisi ariana nel IV Secolo, Institutum Patristicum Augustinainum, Via S., Uffizio 25, Roma), 1975) even while having no particular jurisdiction over them, (Theod. Hist.eccl'bookII, Chap XI, Action du college episcopal) and yet the Church has not hesitated to proclaim his sanctity. Further St. Melilus of Antioch incurred an excommunication for the consecration of a bishop in order to maintain the faith.

Further it is well known that both St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius consecrated priest without the "official" approval of Rome. This like wise was the case with St. Jerome who was excommunicated by Bishop John of Jerusalem for partaking in a so-called "illegal" ordination however such an excommunication was later vindicated! Such historical facts only serve to confirm the courageous actions of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Cardinal Billot writes that Our Lord instituted the primacy, but left in some way the limits of episcopal power undefined, precisely because "it would not have been fitting that those things that are subject to change would be unchangeably fixed by divine law. Some things are indeed subject to change because of the variety of circumstances and of the times and because of greater or lesser facility of recourse to the Apostolic See among other such like things (De Ecclesia Christi, Q.XV, §2, p.713).

Dom Grea, whose attachment to the pope is above all suspicion testifies (De L'Eglise et de sa divine consitution, vol. I) that not only at the beginning of Christianity did the "necessity of the Church and the Gospel" demand that the power of the episcopal order be exercised in all its fullness without jurisdictional limitations, but that in successive ages extraordinary circumstances required "even more exceptional and more extraordinary manifestations" of episcopal power (ibid, P.218) in order "to apply a remedy to the current necessity of the Christian people" for whom there was no hope of aid on the part of the legitimate pastors nor from the Pope. In such circumstances, in which the common good of the Church is at stake, the jurisdictional limitations vanish and "that which is universal" in epicopal power" comes directly to the aid of souls" (ibid, p.218). It must be understood that in the exercise of the power of the keys, Christ remains always the "principle agent" and "no other man can exercise (the power of the keys) as principle agent" (St. Thomas, Supplement, Q.19, A.4).

Dom Grea further writes that the extraordinary manifestations of episcopal power do not call into question the doctrine on the primacy, because necessity, without hope of help from the legitimate pastors takes the "extraordinary action" of the episcopate back to "the essential laws of the hierarchy" which are not at all weakened by the ordinary jurisdictional Laws (see Catholic Encyclopedia, necessity, state of).

The keys of peter are also the "keys of ministry," and therefore not even Peter can use the power of the keys arbitrarily, but must be attentive to the divine order of things. The divine order is that jurisdiction flows to others by means of Peter, yes, but for the preservation of the faith" (St.Thomas, Contra Gentiles, Bk.4, c.72). Therefore, if peter prevented it from being supplied sufficiently for the need of souls, he would act against the divine order and would commit a most grave fault (St. Thomas, Supplement, Q.8, AA. 4-9).

From the above it is thus undeniable that the state of necessity extends not only to the duties of bishops, but also to their power of jurisdiction.

As for jurisdiction, the priests of the SSPX do not deny that they do not have ordinary jurisdiction. Nevertheless the New Code of Canon Law as promulgated by Pope John Paul II provides for the jurisdiction needed for the valid administration of the sacraments of confession, marriage and confirmation in Canon 144. This Canon explains how the law itself gives the necessary faculties when it says "In common error about fact or about law and also in positive and probable doubt law or fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance (jurisdiction) both for the external and internal forum. #2: "This same norm applies to the faculties mentioned in canon.883 (confirmation) canon 966 (confession) and canon 1111#1 (marriage). So Church Law itself can and does give a validly ordained priest the power to hear confessions, bless marriages and administer confirmations even without the permission of the local bishop "since necessity knows no law, in cases of necessity the ordinance of the Church does not hinder him from being able to absolve, since he has the keys sacramentaly" (St. Thomas, S.T. Suppl.,Q.8, A.6). This conforms to the law of "Epikeia" that allows one to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law in a given circumstance.

Pope Pius XII in taking up the common opinion of theologians held that an Episcopal consecration does not, in itself, confer any automatic Jurisdiction but only the fullness of power of order; as through Episcopal consecration, the bishops are potential recipients of jurisdiction and have the passive power to receive jurisdiction (Pius XII, Ad Sinarum Gentem, 7/101954). Episcopal dignity comes directly from God but as regard to jurisdiction it comes from the Apostolic See (Pius VI, The Letter Deesemus). The SSPX bishops do not claim jurisdiction and thus Archbishop Lefebvre's Episcopal consecrations in no way call into question the primacy of jurisdiction of the Holy See and so it does not constitute a schismatic act contrary to what is asserted by "ecclesia Dei Adflica" and so it does not apply.

The power, while wielded by Peter, is owned by Christ. It is to benefit souls, not its possessor. It is to save souls, not damn them. As for the machinery of Peter's control of the consecration of bishops, Christ left it flexible, so that Peter could, down the ages, tighten or loosen that machinery according as different historical circumstances would require for the good of the Church. Medieval popes tightened it, as did Pius XII because of a recurring problem in China, but the Church has approved of Eusebius of Samosate consecrating bishops without the Pope's permission in the 4th century. Therefore if a Pope were to tighten that control to the grave harm of souls, the Church would supply jurisdiction for a bishop to take that consecration into his own hands, as did Archbishop Lefebvre. For the manner of Episcopal consecrations is a matter not of divine law, but of human Church law, allowing for the exceptions possible in all human Church law. The real schism is with those who try and impose the false notion of "collegiality", as this challenge's the Pope's authority as Pope.

Further consensus amongst canonists is that Archbishop Lefebvre was NOT ex-communicated (ie Cardinal Lara , La Republica, October 7, 1988) as he was acting from a state of necessity for which canon law provides. After all the purpose of the law is the salvation of souls; and sometimes it is necessary to follow the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law.

Now, the "excommunication" was supposed to be due to abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), and was not incurred because:

A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 CIC, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity but the person inculpably thought there was. This is because no penalty is ever incurred without grave moral imputability (Canon 1323.7) thus even if he is ever judged as being mistaken it could still never amount to subjective mortal sin.

The "rule of Law" (Regula iuris 15) which gives the benefit of any doubt in cases of penal Law, points out that if there is a doubt whether a penalty has been incurred in a particular case, it means that it has not been incured. One must also say that even if there were an erroneous and punishable supposition of an emergency, still there would be no automatic sanction, much less an excommunication (Canon1324, n.1,8,3).

It appears that there can be no question of a separation with Rome since Abp. Lefebvre acted according to the directives of Catholic theology since "it is legitimate to disobey a popes command and hinder the carrying out of his orders if he jeopardizes souls" (St. Robert Bellarmine, de Romane Pontife, 2,29). Thus the Archbishops decision to consecrate four bishops is in direct line with the saintly bishop and confessor Athanasius who at a time of similar general blindness when heresy prevailed was one of the few bishops who openly resisted it at the cost of even being excommunicated which was a measure understood to be just as invalid as the supposed excommunication of June 30, 1988.

It ought to be noted that popes in the past have also wrongly excommunicated faithful bishops. This is because "a Pope is not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of state, nor in his administration, nor in his public policy" (Cardinal Newman, Difficulties of Anglicans, London, 1876, p.256). Such was the case with Pope Liberius when he excommunicated St. Athanasius when he firmly resisted the Arian heretics of his day (Sarto Books, 1982, Originally Published 1844, P.180). The Catholic dictionary of Theology (1971) states that the excommunication of St. Athanasius was unjust. It must be asked who would now try and argue that St. Athanasius was actually separated from the Church by this unjust condemnation, or that God was bound by it?

Further during this same period St. Jerome tells us that 80% of the bishops were heretics and while at the same time "The entire world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian" (Dialogus contra Luciferianos 19:ML 23,181). Thus during this period (the 4th Century) "In order to be safe from this contagious plague, the true faithful and disciples of Christ had to prefer the ancient beliefs rather than all these false novelties." (St.Vincent of Lerins Commonitorium). Pope Liberius even later signed the Sirmium creed of the Arians (New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, 1967, VIII, 715,col.1) which was "a document reprehensible from the point of view of faith" (ibid. VIII, 715,col.1).

In further understand the present situation of the SSPX, we should be ever mindful that at times "Divine providence often allows even good men to be expelled from the Christian community.... By their patient endurance of such injury and disgrace for the peace of the Church..., they will give man a lesson in true affliction, in the really genuine charity, which God's service calls for. The object of such men is to return when the gale has blown itself out; but if this is not possible because the storm continues, or is more likely to break out more furiously than ever if they go back, they cling to their determination... and are prepared... to defend to the death the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church, and to support it by their loyal testimony. The Father sees these men in secret, and rewards them in secret." ---St. Augustine (354-430), De Vera Religione, sec. 6

Further Michael Davies writes that :

"During a time of apostasy, those who remain true to the Faith may have to worship outside the official churches, in order not to compromise that Faith... they may have to look for truly Catholic teaching not from the bishops of their country... not even to the Roman Pontiff... but to one heroic confessor whom the other bishops and even the Roman Pontiff may have repudiated or excommunicated."

From the above it seems clear that Archbishop Lefebvre (like St. Athanasius) was not condemned for being a heretic or schismatic of any sort but rather because he threatened the false "unity" among the modernists and liberals who like the Arians of the 4th Century were able to occupy high place and exert much influence on the Popes decision. However it must be maintained that no one in the Church has the right to require a unity of communion and / or of government which disregards the unity of Faith for "their is not in the Church a "unity of Communion" without a "unity of Faith." - Dz. 1821; Leo XIII, Satis cognitium (Dz.1969).

We must note that the SSPX existed long before any excommunication ever existed, Archbishop Lefebvre was always most highly regarded and praised for his character, before the Episcopal consecrations. His Character as a faithful servant of Christ, remained with him until his death. Their (the SSPX) claim to be fully within the Roman Catholic Church is thus truly justified, so long as they hold faithfully to their Constitutions as approved by the Church and do not act contrary to Christian doctrine or moral issues. However we do not have to worry about this as Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear in his letter to the future bishops imploring them:

The fact that the Church would betray the cause of Lord Jesus Christ was spelled out in clear and simple language by Our Lady of La Salette (1846 , An approved apparition) saying that " Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist ". For this reason today “only, one offense is vigorously punished, an accurate observance of our fathers traditions” (St. Basil, Ep.243).  Nevertheless Archbishop Lefebvre expressly signifies his loyalty to the Holy See saying that "As for us, they say that we have distanced ourselves from the See of Peter and from the Church. Yet it is we who are the best defenders of both, we who are the most ready to defend the Holy See and the bishops in so far as they the successors of the apostles and the representatives of the church; but not the liberalism they profess." (Against the Heresies Pg. 120)

“That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of priestly formation under the guidance of the never changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to posterity”-  Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration of November 21, 1974

Why have they chosen not to celebrate the new mass but only the Traditional Latin mass?

The Latin Mass is The Mass of the Latin rite which “goes back without essential change, to the age when it developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world. The final result of our enquirey is that in spite of unresolved problems, in spite of later changes there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours” Fortescue, Adrian; The Mass, London, 1917, p213. Thus “no one has ventured to touch it except in unimportant details” (Ibid. p.213) the Roman rite.

Further it must be stated that “it is clear that the Novus ordo no longer intends to present the faith as taught by the Council of Trent. Yet the Catholic conscience is bound to that faith forever. Hence the true Cathoic, by the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, is faced with the tragic necessity of a choice” (Cardian Ottaviani & Bacchi in the Ottaviani intervention). It is an undeniable fact that the “new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology” (Cardinal Benelli, Christian order, Oct. 1978) quite foreign to the Catholic Church.

For this reason it may be said that “it (the New Mass) will thoroughly please all those groups, on the verge of apostasy, who have been at work ravaging the Church, corrupting its organism, and assaulting its doctrinal, liturgical, moral and disciplinary unity, in a period of spiritual crisis that is without precedent” (Cardian Ottaviani & Bacchi in the Ottaviani intervention).

In his the Dogmatic Statement Pope St. Pius V made the Church's position clear on the mass, namely that it was to always be said and not altered in any way. In his Decree we read the following:

"By this our decree, to be valid in perpetuity (for ever) , we determine and order that never shall anything be added to , omitted from, or changed in this Missal.. We specifically warn all persons in authority, of whatever dignity or rank, Cardinals not excluded, and command them, as a matter of strict obedience, never to use or permit any ceremonies or Mass prayers other than the ones contained in this Missal ordered by the Sacred Council of Trent and encompassing all that is necessary to preserve a pure and universally uniform way of worshiping God. . .

And so as to preclude once and for all any scruples of conscience and fear of that we decree and determine that this our present order and decree is to last in perpetuity and can NEVER be legally revoked or amended at future date... And if anyone would nevertheless ever dare to attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, given for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" Decree Quo Primum St Pius V, July 1570

At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. Thus it can be said that the refusal of the new liturgy and adherence to the Traditional Mass, the suspension and any canonical pain are invalid in virtue of the Bull Quo Primum of St Pius V which give to all priest the perpetual right to celebrate the Mass of "St Pius V" and declares null and void any censures against a priest who celebrates this Mass". This Bull was never abolished therefore it remains in full force.

This “liturgical revolution is a mistake touching millions of Catholics at the very core of their religious belief. Let me only mention the sudden abolition and indeed, prohibition of the Latin Mass, the transposition of the officiating priest from the front to the back of the alter and the massive assault on a wide variety of forms of popular piety. If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been able to be advisor to the Church, he could hardly have done a better Job” (Dr. Berger, The Lutheran sociologist, Homiletic and Pastoral review, Feb, 1979).  The very fact that New Mass is acceptable to Protestants should make Catholics wonder if it is expectable to God?

The Council of Trent has made it clear saying, anyone says that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular only, let him be Anathema . " (Session XXII, Canon 9)

It is impossible for the Church to abolish its own traditions without destroying itself in the process. And so we must maintain that "the New Order of the Mass means infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever ." - A public of Cardinal Bacci to Paul VI, Oct 15 1969

Further Pope Paul VI himself stated that the New Mass is not an infallible teaching :

"There is nothing to this idea, absolutely. First of all, because ritual and rubrics are not, in themselves, a matter of dogmatic definition " (Alloction on 19 Nov. 1969).

The fact that the new mass was a disater was confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger (who after the Pope JP2, is the highest authority over the whole Church) who said " I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy"  - The Catholic Weekly, May 11, 1997

When Pope john Paul II asked a commission of nine cardinal if the Latin Mass had ever been legally forbid or if any bishop can forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a tridentine Mass again. To the former question the response of eight (of the nine) cardinals was that no, the Mass of St. Pius V has never been suppressed, while to the latter question the nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentate Mass (Latin Mass, Summer 1995, p.14). The nine Cardinals were Palazzini, Innocenti, Casaroli, Oddi, Ratzinger, Stickler, Mayer, Gantin, and Tomko (The Fatima Crusader, 1990).

Catholic are well in their right to attend the Mass offered by priest of the Fraternity of SSPX since Canon 844.2 even allows Catholics to seek Sacraments of Communion, Penance and Extreme Uncion even from non-Catholic ministers (provided their Order are valid) if it is physically or morally impossible to go to a Catholic minister.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law affirmed that Catholics have a duty to reject error and heresy and all that works against the faith in the following words: Canon 1325.1 - “The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor.”

"And we ourselves experience this, that when we enter ornate and clean Basilicas, adorned with crosses, sacred images, altars, and burning lamps, we most easily conceive devotion. But, on the other hand, when we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except a chair for preaching and a wooden table for making a meal, we feel ourselves to be entering a profane hall and not the house of God." --St. Robert Bellarmine, Octava Controversia Generalis, liber II, Controversia Quinta, caput XXXI.
 

Does the Translation  of “pro multis” as “for all”  invalidate the New Mass?

These words of Apostolic Tradition are not for anyone to change. Whether or not it invalidates the Mass is questionable. This has been questioned by a great number of Catholic theologians not belonging to the SSPX i.e. Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D. (who is also the author of “The destruction of Christian Tradition” and “ The Problems with the New Mass” published by Tan Press) and Patrick Henry Omlor.

In the first place Christ never made use of the words "for all". He was referring to the FRUITS of His Passion at that time, not His DEATH on the Cross! This is why Christ used the words "for many," and not "for all"! This issue of “pro multis” was long ago settled by the council of Trent Which states in it’s Catechism that:"WITH REASON, therefore, WERE THE WORDS "FOR ALL" NOT USED, AS IN THIS PLACE THE FRUITS OF THE PASSION ARE ALONE SPOKEN OF, AND TO THE ELECT ONLY DID HIS PASSION BRING THE FRUIT OF SALVATION. And this is the purpore of the Apostle when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (Heb. IX, 28); and also of the words of our Lord in John: "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given me, because they are Thine". (Jn. XVII, 9)." Catechism of the Council of Trent", Marian ublications, U.S.A., reprint 1972, pp. 227-8. (see also The Holy Eucharist by St. Alphonsus de Liguori p.44).

Further the Council of Florence, in 1442, declared that the following words must be used for a valid Consecration in the Mass: "Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: 'For this is My Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." (Denzinger 715). De Defectibus of Pope St. Pius V agrees with the statement by the Council of Florence above. To cite the document:

Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin. (De Defectibus, Chapter V, defects of form) 

The Council of Florence affirms that the words of consecration  "having been confirmed by the teaching and by the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul" are those which are to be used (Enchiridion Symbolorum. Cc. Florentinum: Decr. pro Jacobitis. p. 342, No. 1352). Hence, it is most certainly a change in both the WORDS of the Institution, and the MEANING of those words - which according to De Defectibus would render the Sacrament invalid!

The "new form" changes the theology behind the Words of Christ, changes the Words of Christ themselves, and then tries to make the blasphemous and sacrilegious claim that this ambiguous phrase - which might conceivably be heretical - was spoken by Christ! The innovators have dared to introduce into the most sacred part of the Mass, a lie! They have attributed words to Christ which He never spoke! They have changed the theology behind the Words of Christ!

What is not sacred to these men, when even Our Lord's own Words are not held to be sacred?

When dealing with the sacraments it is not so much the words as the meaning. Now, in every single instance, without doubt, whenever we have the consecration of the wine, what we are dealing with is the fact that this is efficacious only for Catholics - "for you and for many." Never, ever, ever, does it say "all." Second of all, if "this is my blood" is all that is needed (as some claim) let them show forth a single rite in the Catholic Church that makes use of these words only. Yet this is not possible since all the other forms of Consecration 1) make use of the Words of Christ, 2) use the proper form of Consecration that is required for their particular rite, 3) mean the same as the Traditional Form of Consecration - not a single one of them use the words "for all" in their consecration form.

The Novus Ordo Missae does none of these. The Novus Ordo does not use the Words of Christ (it has changed them to something else), the Novus Ordo does not use the proper form of Consecration which is required for the Latin Rite (as can be seen by reading De Defectibus and the Council of Florence), and the consecration form of the Novus Ordo means something completely different from the meaning which was made use of by Christ, and the entire Catholic Church, up to the introduction of this new form. As it is, the mere absence of the words "for many" is not the sole argument against the validity of the Consecration formula of the Novus Ordo Missae, these words can be ommitted and the Sacrament would still have the same meaning - though it would be a sin on the part of the celebrant to knowingly omit these words from the Mass of the Latin Rite (cf. De Defectibus).

The argument is that the consecration formula of the Novus Ordo Missae has introduced a brand new meaning into the consecration form, one which has never before been seen, and one which changes the theology behind the Sacrament. According to St. Thomas Aquinas (and De Defectibus) this would invalidate the Sacrament.

As St. Thomas Aquinas stated:

"For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey, as stated above, we must see whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid." (Summa Th., III, Q. 60, Art. 8).

Thus it is not the replacing of the words "for many" with "for all" that is the sole problem here. Since to invalidate a sacrament it would merely require the suppression of any substantial part of the sacramental form which would destroyed the essential sense of the words, consequently producing an invalid sacrament.The words "for all" change the meaning of the consecration formula to the sufficiency of Christ's Death, not its efficacy. Thus we see that with such serious defects in the new form of consecration which have given Catholic theologians serious reasons to doubt it's possible validity or at least given them reasons for affirming that it may be invalid regardless of the priest intentions since a good intention does not supply for a defective rite.   

Note: In the Latin Typical Edition of the Novus Ordo Missal, the words "pro multis" are used, however in the vernacular translations they have translated the words "pro multis" as "for all". It only goes to show that the Novus Ordo, which demands of people blind obedience, is not even obedient to Paul VI who issued the Novus Ordo Missal.    

Didn’t Archbishop Lefebvre sign the document on “Religious Liberty” ?

Archbishop Lefebvre has repeatedly declared that he signed neither this document nor Gaudium et Spes, regardless of what is claimed one only need consult fidelier no.79, p.7. The Archbishop makes it clear saying that “God is my witness that we (Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Castro de Mayer, Bishop Sigaud) refused to sign these two decrees. If anyone can remember this, it is certainly myself and not these young men who were scarcely born at the time of the council! (20, April 1990).

This is confirmed by the fact that at the time of the audience granted to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976, Pope Paul VI reproached him for not having given this signature. The Pope had research done in the archive’s before the audience! It must also be noted that if a Father wanted to mark his reprobation of or another text promulgated, says Fr. De Blignieres, it was necessary for him to indicate this at the side of his signature: but one finds no trace of this mark beside the thousands of the signatures of the Fathers of the Council. The form of promulgation provided in article 49 of the initial rules of the Council (Acta, periodus II, p.40) mentions those who refused to give that signature: The Pope promulgates the decrees which have been read to the Fathers and approved by them “tot numero exceptis” (with the exception of such a number). This is done to indicate that those who refuse to sign are not associated with the promulgation by the Pope.

According to Fr. Hans Kung (who helped draft the declaration of religious Liberty) “Lefebvre has every right to question the council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom because Vatican II completely reversed Vatican I’s Position without explanation” (the National Catholic Reporter, 21st of October 1977).

Finally it seems more natural to have confidence on this point in Archbishop Lefebvre, who was present at the Council and who has always been know for his honesty and sanctity of Life. “I shall retain forever, a profound admiration for the Man of God, the Man of the Church, the man of prayer, the giant missionary which is Monsignor Lefebvre” – Cardinal Benelli, 1976, an interview with Dr. Eric de Saventhem (Founder of Una Voce International Federation).

                                    What about the suppression of seminary of Econe?

This  illegal suppression of the seminary of Econe is all well documented by Michael Davies in his book Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.

It must be said that those who concede it to be an act of disobedience not to close the seminary, either know next to nothing about the situation or blindly deny the crisis in Church. This is because it is only too evident that the early success of the sspx could not continue long without an eventual Modernist counter-attack.

What had really taken place is not even known by the Novus ordinarians who except such a suppression without even looking into the matter like one who believes everything he reads in the papers to be Gospel.

Following the Apostolic visitation (November 1974), a special Commission of Cardinals was named by Pope Paul VI to “interview” Archbishop Lefebvre. Two long sessions occurred, on 13th of February and 3rd of March 1975. Lefebvre was given no transcript nor was he advised he was on trial (cfr. canons 1585:1,2142).  Thus on the 6th of May 1975, Bishop Mamie wrote to Archbishop saying “I retire the acts and concessions granted by my predecessor in that which concerns the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, particularly the decree of Erection of 1 November 1970.” This action was completely illegal. The SSPX according to its statutes approved by Bishop Chariere, is a priestly society “of common life without vows,” coming under the provisions of canons 673-674 and 488, As the Holy See could only suppress the SSPX, which alone has the power to suppress such an institute erected under diocesan Law (c.493). It must be also noted that once a Bishop has approved a religious order it can only be suppressed by the Holy See (can. 493 in 1917 code applicable at the time. See also can. 584 in the code of 1983).

 It was precisely on the illegality of the procedure followed that Archbishop Lefebvre’s first appeal on June the 5th 1975 was based, on the violation of norms, which are prescribed to prevent unjust measures. Regardless of the truth of the matter the bishops of Rome refused to hear his appeal which was clearly “illicit in its violation of natural Justice” as “morally, such an attempt to deny a man’s right’s and frustrate his life’s work, while refusing him any legal recourse is appalling” (The Cambridge review, 23/10/1976).

Why does the SSPX reject parts of the New Canon Law?

Canon Law is there only to reflect and put into effect the Church’s teachings and not the Popes personal belief’s. For this reason Catholics are bound in conscience to reject that which does not conform with that which has always been taught everywhere and always and by all and not simply whatever the current pontiff wants them to believe. In order to show just how badly the new Canon Law was put together is expressed by Bishop Edward Egan, an ardent Papal loyalist, who served on the roman rota and was one of the Pope’s advisers on the new code of Canon Law. He has said that he believed it “is so flawed he told a mutual priest friend in New York that it won’t last 20 years” (Latin Mass Magazine, Chronicle of a Catholic reform, Pg. 9. Volume 7, No. 1, 1998). Note that even though some parts of the New Code of Canon Law must be rejected nevertheless the sspx in no way denies the Pope John Paul II has “the Capacity as supreme legislator” to put into effect his canon Law.

Below are just a few novelties, which must be rejected by all Catholics.

1) Can. 844§4 allows the administration of penance, anointing of the sick and even Holy Communion to non-Catholics who manifest "Catholic faith" in these sacraments. This used to be considered a Mortal sin and was gravely forbidden [CIC (1917) c731§2] because it implicitly denies the dogma "Outside the Church, no salvation."

2) Can. 1055§1 no longer defines marriage by its primary end, the procreation of Children, (Gen. 1:28) but mentions this only after a secondary end, the good of the spouses.  Whence today's annulments fiasco: in the USA, for example, there were 338 annulments accorded in 1968; but
there were 59,030 annulments accorded in 1992.

3) Can. 336 codifies the collegiality of Vatican II: the "College of Bishops," a twentieth-century invention, is now made a permanent subject, together with the Pope, of supreme and full power over the Universal Church. A bishop, moreover, participates in this universal jurisdiction by
the mere fact of his consecration (cf c375 §2). This collegiality tampers with the divine constitution of the Church, derogates from the Pope's powers and hampers his government of the Church (as well, indeed, as that of the Bishops in their dioceses.) "Episcopal Conferences" now assume authority, which thus becomes impersonal and unanswerable.

 "For there will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine...and will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables. But do thou be watchful in all things" - 2 Tim 4:3-5

What about Ecclesia Dei?

If you read that document in the original Latin, it is clear that it has been pieced together from at least three different sources. Undoubtedly, the Archbishop caught the Vatican with its cassock down and forced the "powers that be" to throw a patchwork document together. A lot of the ambiguity and internal contradictions of the document can be explained if one knows this.

In this document we read as follows "To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin Tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations."

The issue of the Latin Mass is not about one of "feeling" but about Catholic conviction. Catholics do not demand the Latin Mass only because they like it, but because it is the perfect
expression of our faith. To prefer the Latin Mass as "some previous liturgical form" is absurd. The Mass of St. Pius V is not previous, it is current and perennial.

This letter of the Commission is an affront to all good Traditional Catholics, particularly those who reject the Novus Ordo, but who have no other Mass available to them than an "indult" Mass. One must relize our faith is based on 2000 years of Church teaching not one some papal granted indult! Further the Ecclesia Dei indult was only set up as a temporary means of getting Catholics to accept the false innovations of the Novus Order: "I must tell you that, when on an official visit to Rome last september, Other Irish Bishops and I visited the Commission, Ecclesia Dei. The President, Cardinal Innocenti, Opened the discussion by telling us that this was a temporary commission which is to work itself out of existance" - Bishop Diarmaid Osvilleabhain 5/7/93

Further this "Indult," which contradicts a solemn, arguably infallible, papal bull promulgating the canons of the dogmatic Council of Trent is one that might to a limited extent be used by Traditional Catholics when nothing else in an area is possible, but it should certainly not be regarded as the "be-all and end-all" of Traditional Catholicism.

To regard it as such would be to make the mistake of the homeowner in the parable of Our Lord who built his house upon sand, only to see it washed away. We Traditional Catholics must build our house upon the firm rock of the Traditional Roman Catholic Faith, the Sacred Apostolic Tradition, and the wisdom of the Fathers and Doctors, Popes and Councils of the Church.

The "Ecclesia Dei" people should get down on their knees and thank the Lord for people like Fr. DePauw and Archbishop Lefebvre to stand up and defend the Church, there would be no "indult" for them as he awoke in the hearts of many the importance of this mass, and the Preservation of the Catholic Faith. However, gratitude and humility does not seem to be a characteristic of the "indult" mindset, unless it involves sycophantic, effusive praise for the scraps of the diocesan bishops who caused the problem in the first place "

What are Catholics to think of Vatican II ?

The pope who summoned the Council and the pope who promulgated its decrees made it clear that Vatican II was a pastoral, not a dogmatic Council.  Catholics are, therefore, within their rights to make reservations regarding any novelties emanating from Vatican II that are out of step with Sacred Tradition and the previous continuous Magisterium (official teaching) of the Church.  "The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council" (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, El Mercurio, July 17, 1988).

Pope John XXIII, who convoked the council had no intention of it being an infallible and so he stated that "there will be no infallible definitions.  All that was done by former Councils. That is enough.  --Pope John XXIII (apud Fr. Yves Congar). Pope Paul VI further made this point clear saying that “differing from other Councils, this one (Vatican II) was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.  -- August 6, 1975, General Audience

When, during the rebellious first session of the Council, he [Pope John XXIII] realized that the papacy had lost control of the process, he attempted, as Cardinal John Heenan of Westminster later revealed, to organize a group of bishops to try to force it to an end.  Before the second session opened he had died.  --Alice Muggeridge, The Desolate City (revised & expanded ed./1990), p. 72; letter from Fr. Joseph W. Oppitz, C.S.s.R. in "America" magazine of April 15, 1972

It must not be mistaken that since the council was attended and called by the Pope that it would automatically be lead by the Holy Ghost as "to call a council is a practical decision of the pope.  A person may piously believe that God inspired it.  But no one can say that this
is an object of faith."  --Fr. Gregory Hesse, "Outside the Church there is No Salvation", Catholic Family News, February 1997 [IV:2], pp. 13 et seqq.)

Vatican I (a dogmatic council, which Vatican II was not) makes it very clear that the pope is SUBSERVIENT to the Deposit of Faith. Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI explicitly chose to withhold dogmatic authority from Vatican II. Therefore, whatever it did or however it is interpreted, it has none of the weight of the dogmatic Council of Trent and Vatican I.

In fact, it is canonically possible for a future pope to annul the outcome of the council, as it was merely a pastoral council. The Council of Ephesus in 449, which was regularly called and attended by all the East and by legates from Pope St. Leo the Great, was annulled by that pope's subsequent opposition to it and branded the "Robber's Council" (Latrocinium).

"The Church united in councils, even general councils, has sometimes been mistaken" (Dictionaire de Theologie Catholique).  The teaching of the Council of Florence on the matter and form for the Sacrament of Holy Orders (Sessio VIII, November 22, 1439) was set aside
by Pope Pius XII in his Apostolic Constitution "Sacramentum Ordinis" (1947).

There is also the example of the illegal Council of Pistoia, which was held in September of 1786 by the Bishop of Pistoia and Prato, in a daring effort to secure the errors of Jansenism. The Council attempted to spread errors by emphasising the notion of "Community", by giving bishops more authority " much like Vatican II did by the proclamation of collegiality of bishops, and many other errors of the illegal Council of Pistoia. This council was condemned and eighty-five of its propositions were stigmatized as erroneous and dangerous.

Pius VI on 28 August, 1794, dealt the death-blow to the influence of the council in his Bull "Auctorem Fidei", which condemned the propositions of this illegal council:

"[To contend that] ways must be prepared for people to unite their voices with that of the whole Church -- if this be understood to signify the introduction of the use of the vernacular language into the liturgical prayers -- is condemned as false, rash, disturbing to the order prescribed for the celebration of the sacred mysteries, easily productive of many evils." (Auctorem Fidei)

Thus we can see that not only is it clearly possible that Vatican II and it's outcome may be later be annulled but also that many of the false innovation that were introduced or brought about as a result of this council have already been clearly condemned by the Church.

In fact, Paul VI, who promulgated the documents of the Council in 1965, like his predecessor   began to reject the fruits of that Council. He issued two startling statements to that effect.

 (1) "The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-demolition [auto-destruction].  It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council.  It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself.  We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in the great sessions of the council.  But ... one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect.  It is as if the Church were destroying herself.  --Pope Paul VI, December 7, 1968, Address to the Lombard Seminary at Rome

 (2)  We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God:  it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation.... We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church.  What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties.  -- Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1972, Homily during the Mass for Sts. Peter &
Paul, on the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation in his response to Vatican II

Vatican II, therefore, as a pastoral council, has no dogmatic force and can be held to be imprudent or even in error, with no compromise to one's Catholic faith.
 

"The way we worship is the way we believe" (lex orandis, lex credendi) - Pope St Pius V
 

Some hold however that the Church must move with the times and so it must be updated?

This notion is false in itself as God is not "old" his truths remain applicable to all generations as Christ himself that said "heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away" (Mk 13:31). The truth is not to be altered to suit the day but rather the day (every generation) must conform to the truth.

Pope Gregory XVI rejected this same error in his day saying that " The Holy Ghost by His daily assistance will never fail to teach her all Truth, it is the height of absurdity and outrage towards her to claim that restoration and regeneration have become necessary for her to assure her existence and her progress" (Mirari Vos). However it may be rightly said that "the (Catholic) faith grew through time but it was not so changed as to become another" - Vatican I Dz. 1800,1818.
 

"stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned" - 2Thess 2:14.

St. Augustine, exclaims " Who are we, compared to the saints and faithful of those Latter times, who shall be called on to resist the attacks of an enemy unchained, whom we can but feebly resist while he is yet in chains ? (20 De Civit c. 8).

St Hippolytus exclaimed " Oh happy those who will conquer such a tyrant, they will certainty be far and away more illustrious than their fathers in the Faith, for the fist martyrs had to contend only against the satellites of the demon, while they will be victorious over the son of perdition. What a praise, what crowns shall be awarded them by Our Lord! If the Church be compared to any army drawn out in battle array (Cant. 6:9), we have reason to believe that Jesus Christ, its captain, would reserve the best soldiers to last.

St. Athanasius " Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to a handful, are the true Church of Jesus Christ." (ca. 296-373) Apud Caillau and Guillou, Coll. Selecta Ss. Eccl. Patrum, vol. 32, pp. 411-412

Saint Thomas Aquinas "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

St. Joan of Arc, Tried and burned as a heretic May 20, 1431.  Canonized as a saint May 16, 1920. Said to the tribunal of corrupt bishops that condemned her to death:  "They [the bishops of France] are not the Church.  Jesus Christ is the Church."

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerick (1774-1824) " Even if there were only one person left who held the right Catholic Faith, there would be the Catholic Church."

Our Lady of La Salette1846 (An approved apparition) " Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist "

Pope St. Pius X " In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men . . . All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics." (Dec. 13th 1908)

Cardinal Gagnon "I have infinite respect for Msgr. Lefebvre, he reflects, seeks advice, prays; then he acts, even if the whole world stand on its head".

Further after being appointed by Pope John Paul II to investigate the SSPX seminaries and churches in Europe, He (Cardinal Gagnon) left the following note in the register at Econe for Dec 8,1987 :

"May the Immcaulate Virgin hear our fervent prayers so that the work of (priestly) formation, marvelously fulfilled in this house, might shine forth in the life of the Church".

"In 1947, a young missionary bishop , Mgr. Lefebvre, gave a new life to the work of the Church with the opening of new centers of Catholicism . . . his creative work left in Africa a profound mark." The Official journal of the Vatican, L'Osservatory Romano (French edition, July 1976).

Fr. Morgan : "The SSPX priests are "God's peaceful corps who do not know the meaning of defeat. Scarcely conscious that a battle is being waged, they go their daily way along. Hand in wounded hand with Christ had His blessed Mother, nad they never give up. Their prayer is simply for the strength to carry on. Few know of their heroism, of the victories that they win. God knows and engineers them all. Their treasure and whole heart are in Christ. They have a wisdom and an influence beyond." And all this, because "they belong to Christ".

Reverend Philippe Lagueri, Parish Priest at the Traditionlist Church of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet in Paris, France, said on the death of Archbishop Lefebvre: "In the near-universal chaos that is the Church of the 20th century, he remains a guiding light, a torch for the 21st century." The Globe And Mail, Toronto, March 21,1991.

" Archbishop Lefebvre is not in his present position through any fault of his own. He did not innovate anything, he did not invent anything, he did not overturn anything; he has simply perservated and transmitted the deposit which he recieved. He has kept the promises of his baptism, the doctorine of his Catechism, the Mass of his ordination, the Dogmas defined by Popes and Councils, the Theology and the Traditional ecclesiology of the Church of Rome. Just by his existence, by his being, and without having willed it, he is thus the witness of a crisis which is not of his making, but that of an uncertain Pope at the head of two Churches at the same time. "

- Jean Madiran , Editor of the Frech Review ' Itineraires'

" Concerning the Archbishop personally, a journalist asked recently what was my outstanding memory of the man. I gave maybe a suprising answer: his objectivity. He had, of course, a uniquely attractive personality because he was a saint - gentle, kind, simple, humble, humorous and so on, without a trace of sentimentality, but that was not the point. Underneath all that lay a great intelligence and faith and firmness of character, but that was still not the print. Essentially he was a man empty of self and full of God. To meet him, to talk to him, was to see - through him - the Truth' Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. He was like a window on the interests of God. Not he, but Christ, lived within him, and yet that was Marcel Lefebvre and nobody else. And what a marvelous man he was!"  - Bishop Williamson, (The Angeluss, May-June 1991, p.2)

"The Spiritual daughter of Padre Pio, was commanded by him consecrate her life to help the priests and the Catholic faithful in Communist countries, bringing them financial help, medicines, books and religious objects to help them to keep their faith. She (Madame Tangari) continued this apostolate, helping the priests of the SSPX, to the point that there is not one country in the (traditional) world, which has not been in some way benefited by her generosity and dedication. Purified by a long prison term in Czechoslovakia under the KGB, she was not afraid of taking a public stand for Archbishop Lefebvre and his works. A truly saintly soul, she continues to help us (sinners in the Universal Church) from her well-deserved rest in heaven."  - The Angelus, Jan 95

Father Paul Wickens, Author of Christ Denied and many other great Catholic books, had the following to say about the SSPX:

“These Modernist rascals use denigrating terms about the saintly Archbishop Lefebvre and the wonderful Pius X Society – calling them schismatics, among other names. If you do not take the time to find the whole truth you might believe the name-callers. I do not belong to the Society of Pius X, but I have great respect for them and the Archbishop.” – Christ Denied, pg. 66
 

"I am only a Bishop of the Catholic Church who continues to pass on Doctorine. I think, and probably not before too long, that they will be able to engrave upon my tomb simply these words of Saint Paul :'Tradidi vobis quod et accepi'. For I delivere unto you that which I also reveived." - Sermon at the Consecration of Bishops. Econe 30 June 1988.

"Thus says the LORD: 'Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls' " - Jeremiah 6:16